NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday underscored the importance of balancing the protection of the rights of the accused with society’s demand for safety and justice. The court made these remarks as it examined a challenge to several provisions of the recently introduced Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) on July 1.
The new laws, aimed at tackling organised crime and modernizing criminal procedures, have faced criticism for allegedly diluting safeguards present in specialized legislations. Some provisions have sparked concerns over their potential to infringe upon constitutional rights, especially in regard to fair trials and protection from self-incrimination.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the case and stressed the need to assess the effectiveness of the new laws before making judgments about their constitutionality. “When new laws are introduced, there are often imaginary concerns, but these may not materialize,” Justice Kant said, emphasizing that citizens have a right to live free from crime, fear, and threats. He posed questions about public safety, asking, “Are your buses safe? Are your railways safe? Organised crime, drug trafficking, and cybercrime are rampant. Can we expect the legislature, given these challenges, to prioritize procedural safeguards for accused persons in such serious crimes?”
The remarks came in response to arguments presented by senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, who represented retired BSF commandant Azad Singh Kataria, the petitioner. Guruswamy argued that Section 111 of the BNS, which deals with organised crime, lacks adequate procedural safeguards, such as those found in specialized laws like the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). She contended that this could violate the accused’s constitutional rights, particularly their right to a fair trial.
In reply, the bench questioned whether Parliament was obligated to replicate safeguards found in state-level laws. “The Parliament has its own wisdom. They apply their minds and are fully aware of the consequences when they make decisions to amend or replace provisions,” Justice Bhuyan remarked.
The bench also noted the necessity of effective legal frameworks. “Without an effective law, it will not have any impact. A toothless tiger cannot help,” said Justice Kant, implying that strong legal provisions are necessary to combat organized crime.
Guruswamy, however, expressed concern that the integration of specialized provisions into general criminal law could undermine their effectiveness and lead to disparities in enforcement. “Treating petty offenses the same as organized crime under MCOCA risks diluting the law’s focus,” she said, arguing that the resources to classify and investigate every minor offense as organized crime are lacking.
The court acknowledged the potential for abuse of the new provisions but stressed the importance of judicial oversight in preventing misuse. “The possibility of misuse does not automatically render a law unconstitutional,” the bench stated. “Judicial monitoring will ensure that provisions are not misused, just as with older laws.”
The petition also raised concerns about the reintroduction of sedition-like provisions under Section 152 of the BNS. Guruswamy pointed to similarities with the now-suspended sedition law, Section 124A of the IPC. However, the bench stated that if Parliament has addressed the issues with the previous law, the new provision cannot be dismissed without consideration. A five-judge bench is currently reviewing the constitutionality of the sedition law.
Another controversial provision, extending police custody limits under the BNSS from 15 days to as long as 60-90 days, was also challenged. Guruswamy argued that this could lead to forced confessions and violate the safeguards established in the landmark DK Basu case. The court, however, adjourned the matter for further deliberation, requesting Guruswamy to submit a comparative chart of the provisions under challenge for a detailed hearing.
The BNS, BNSS, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (which replaced the Indian Evidence Act) represent significant reforms in India’s criminal justice system. The government has stated that these laws aim to replace colonial-era provisions with a modern legal framework designed to deliver justice more effectively. The new laws incorporate technological advances in police investigations, streamline the trial process, and seek to eliminate delays in the justice system.
While the laws are positioned as a step toward more effective crime prevention and prosecution, the debate continues over the balance between societal safety and the protection of individual rights.
