The Indian political landscape saw fresh tensions on Monday as the Opposition launched a vehement attack against the Central government over the implementation of new criminal laws. These laws, passed in Parliament last December, have been criticized as being hastily enacted without adequate debate, with opposition leaders dismissing them as a “cut, copy, and paste job.”
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) came into effect following a contentious legislative process. Opposition leaders accused the government of sidelining parliamentary democracy by suspending 146 MPs during the Winter Session, which was marred by protests over a breach of security in Parliament. Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge expressed his outrage on social media, asserting, “After the political and moral shock in the elections, Modi ji and the BJP are pretending to respect the Constitution. The truth is these laws were forcibly passed.”
Kharge’s remarks highlight the palpable frustration among opposition ranks, who feel the government is undermining democratic processes. He criticized the government’s approach, stating that the “Bulldozer Justice” being applied in Parliament cannot be allowed to continue.
Former Finance Minister P. Chidambaram joined the chorus of dissent, labeling the legislation a product of governmental laziness. He claimed that “90-99 percent” of the new laws amounted to mere duplications of existing statutes, asserting that minor amendments could have achieved the same objectives. “Yes, there are a few improvements in the new laws, but they could have been introduced as amendments,” he stated. Chidambaram’s concerns extend to several provisions he views as retrograde and potentially unconstitutional, warning that the rushed nature of the legislative process could lead to chaos in the administration of criminal justice.
Congress MP Manish Tewari echoed these sentiments, urging a thorough re-examination of the new laws, which he argues could lead to the establishment of a police state. Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) leader Supriya Sule also expressed alarm, stating that the laws threaten civil liberties and democratic freedoms. “By expanding police authority, permitting solitary confinement, and diminishing judicial oversight, the NDA government is creating a repressive police state. The soul of Indian democracy is at stake,” she warned.
Concerns about the vague wording of the laws were raised by Trinamool Congress MP Sagarika Ghose, who highlighted the potential for misuse. She criticized the reintroduction of the offense of sedition and the new definitions of terrorism, which she deemed dangerous. Ghose warned that these developments provide the government with excessive power to infringe on citizens’ rights.
More Read
The three new laws replace colonial-era statutes: the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860, the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) of 1973, and the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. Union Home Minister Amit Shah, who played a pivotal role in advocating for the new legislation, asserted that the laws aim to prioritize justice, moving away from the punitive focus of their colonial predecessors.
The new framework introduces several modern features, including the concept of “Zero FIR,” which allows for the registration of complaints at any police station, regardless of jurisdiction. It also facilitates online filing of police complaints, electronic summons via SMS, and mandates videography of crime scenes for serious offenses. Shah emphasized that these provisions represent a significant step forward in creating a “modern justice system” for India.
As the new laws take effect, the Opposition remains vigilant, warning of potential overreach and abuse of power. With concerns over civil liberties and the integrity of democratic institutions at the forefront, the coming days are likely to see continued scrutiny and debate over the implications of these legislative changes. The government’s response to the criticism will be crucial as India navigates this contentious chapter in its legal and political history.
