New Delhi gave The Supreme Court Juma stressed the importance of striking a balance between protecting the rights of the accused and addressing society’s demand for protection and justice, as he challenged various provisions of the law. Bharatiya Naya Sanhta(BNS) and Indian Citizen Security Society (BNSS).

The new laws, which replaced the Indian Penal Code and the Indian Penal Code from July 1, include provisions to deal with organized crime, but are said to undermine the constitutionality of safeguards in special legislation. has been attacked.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ajal Bhuyan emphasized the need to review the effectiveness of these new laws instead of prematurely dismissing them and said citizens have the right to live a crime-free life.

“When something new is introduced, there are many imaginary concerns, but they cannot be fulfilled. Society has a right to live free from crime, fear and intimidation. Are your buses safe? Are your railways safe? Is it? Organized crime, drug supply, cybercrimes — can we expect the legislature to prioritize security measures for those accused?

Read more: The Supreme Court allowed the withdrawal of petitions against the new criminal laws.

The court’s remarks came in response to the arguments of senior advocate Meenaka Guruswamy, representing the petitioner, retired BSF commandant Azad Singh Kataria, who argued that Section 111 of the BNS was a violation of the Organized Crime Act. Adds provisions without reservations as in special laws like Maharashtra control. Organized Crime Act (MCOCA). Guruswamy argued that the absence of such safeguards risks violating constitutional guarantees, including the right to a fair trial and protection against self-incrimination.

In response, the bench questioned whether Parliament was bound to copy state-level reservations. Parliament has its own wisdom. Heavy presumptions favor legislatures — they deliberate, apply their minds and are aware of the consequences of their decisions when they add or delete something.

The court also highlighted societal expectations of an effective legal framework, saying: “Unless there is an effective law, it will not have effect. A toothless tiger cannot help.”

Guruswamy, however, argued that the incorporation of special provisions into the general criminal law risks reducing their effectiveness and creating disparities. “Treating two pickpockets as MCOCA-level organized criminals defeats the purpose. We lack the investigative resources to classify every petty crime as organized crime.

On concerns about potential misuse of the new provisions, the bench acknowledged the possibility but emphasized the role of judicial oversight in preventing misuse. “Possibility of misuse or even actual misuse of a provision will not render a statute unconstitutional even though such acts would be illegal,” the court said, adding that judicial discretion to ensure Care shall be taken to ensure that no provision is misused by those empowered. As with the old laws.

The debate also touched upon the alleged reintroduction of the offense of sedition under Section 152 of the BNS. While Guruswamy highlighted its similarity to Article 124A, which was suspended by the Supreme Court in 2022, the bench noted that if Parliament had removed the loopholes of the previous provision, the new law would not be rejected outright. can On this, Guruswamy said that a reference related to the Sedition Act, which includes the new Section 152 BNS, is pending before a five-judge bench.

The petition also challenged the extension of the police detention limit under the BNSS from 15 days to a possible 60-90 days, arguing that it could lead to forced confessions and abuse. Guruswamy called it an attack on the safeguards established in the DK Basu case, arguing that such provisions could affect the physical and mental health of the accused.

However, the court adjourned the matter, requesting Guruswamy to add a comparative chart of the provisions under challenge for a detailed hearing.

The BNS, the BNSS and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhanim (which replaced the Indian Evidence Act) shaped the way criminal laws were interpreted in the country. The central government declared that while the colonial British rulers had Laws were enacted with the intent to punish. Indian subjects will try to provide justice to the citizens by amending the new laws. Punishment and procedure applicable for investigation and prosecution of offences.

The new laws also seek to iron out loopholes that delay investigations by police, trials by courts and justice, and leave little room for lawyers, judges and prosecutors to complete trials. done