“Fast-tracked laws make a slow-paced justice,” appears fitting in this context. Experts believe that while modifications to criminal laws were needed, a complete overhaul was considered unnecessary
“Law made in haste is like a leaky vase, it won’t hold water for long”
As we ushered in the new year, the country was gripped by a
significant truck drivers’ strike, leading to fuel shortages, panic buying, and
skyrocketing prices for essentials like vegetables and milk. The epicentre of
the transporters’
protest was a provision in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, one of the three
new criminal Acts recently fast-tracked through Parliament.
The recurring pattern of ‘enact first, debate later’ is becoming increasingly noticeable.
It seems that the central government tends to shock the country with its apparent preparedness and effectiveness. The country was thrown into demonetisation in the blink of an eye following a speech, and a scant four-hour warning was issued for the Covid lockdown. The Data Protection Act of 2023 was enacted with little debate, and the latest instances are the three criminal law bills, which have been denounced for undermining Parliamentary democracy.
The government’s propensity to act impulsively and retract subsequently was clearly demonstrated when a provision in the newly enacted criminal law, which proposed severe penalties for hit-and-run cases, was abruptly suspended due to nationwide truckers’ protests. This is just one instance that surfaced within days of the law’s enactment and it’s clear that more are on the horizon, as shown by the rushed introduction of the GST in 2017. Since then, 129 amendments and 741 notifications related to GST have been issued over a span of five years.
“Fast-tracked laws make a slow-paced justice,” appears fitting in this context. Experts believe that while modifications to criminal laws were needed, a complete overhaul was considered unnecessary. This has not only resulted in confusion but shall also led to extensive revisions of age-old interpretations and jurisprudence, which have been meticulously examined and refined by courts at various levels.
The new Criminal Law Bills were introduced by a committee whose members and objectives were shrouded in secrecy, evading public scrutiny. The initial draft of these three bills was prepared by the Ranbir Singh Committee. This committee was solely made up of men with similar social, professional, and economic experiences. It did not include representatives from a variety of marginalised groups such as women, Dalits, religious minorities, Adivasis, LGBIQs, and individuals with disabilities. The lack of varied viewpoints was a major issue, especially when dealing with issues of such great importance and societal influence.
The pre-legislative consultation policy of 2014 mandates a 30-day consultation period with the public before a law can be green-lit for introduction in Parliament. This process should encompass explanations for its enactment, financial implications, and an assessment of the law’s potential impact. However, there is a glaring absence of a clear and compelling justification for such a significant overhaul. Especially after the Home Minister’s statement in Parliament that the primary objective was to modify a few specific sections further amplifies questions about the necessity of such sweeping changes.
Along side, the suspension of 146 Opposition MPs, representing 25% of India’s population, during the passage of the bills is a glaring example of the suppression of dissenting voices. This raises serious concerns about the functioning of our parliamentary democracy. The government swiftly used the opposition’s absence to push through legislation, including last-minute additions via the Supplementary Agenda. This not only passed new bills but also cleared pending ones. The opposition, usually a check on the government, was absent, and no bill was scrutinised by any committee. This session saw the parliament acting as a rubber stamp for the government. A crucial decision to replace the 160-year-old criminal law system was made without the opposition.
Reform or Repression?
The recent legislative actions highlight a disturbing trend of ‘legislate first, discuss later’. This approach not only undermines the democratic process but also leads to poorly drafted laws that require numerous amendments and cause widespread confusion and protest.
The current state of affairs serves as a stark reminder of the importance of transparency, dialogue, and respect for democratic norms in the process of law-making. It’s high time we took notice.
Undeniably, there is a need for reform, but the journey towards it must be paved with careful deliberation and respect for democratic principles. The voices of the people must be heard, and their concerns addressed, for genuine progress to be achieved.
We are all proponents of reform. Who could possibly be against it? However, under the guise of reform, we must not become more oppressive than our colonisers. While there is an irrefutable need to reform the colonial-era criminal framework, some of the provisions of the current criminal law Acts threaten to treat citizens worse than the ‘native subjects’ under the Angrej Raj.
We strive to make a lasting impact on India’s policy and planning landscape through fair, unbiased, and incisive research based journalism.
But we can’t do it alone.
Together, we can create a better India, where policies are fair, planning is unbiased, and the truth prevails. Your contribution matters, and we shall be immensely grateful for your support.