Over three bills: Opposition MPs set to give dissent notes on report

A number of Opposition members in Parliament’s standing committee on home affairs are set to give dissent notes on the panel’s report on three bills that are set to replace the British-era Indian Penal Code (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and the Indian Evidence Act, people aware of developments said on Wednesday.

The 30-member committee, which is reviewing the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Bharatiya Sakshya Sanhita, has 10members from opposition parties. It is headed by Bharatiya Janata Party Rajya Sabha member Brij Lal.

The developments came a day after HT reported that the panel is likely to ask for a gender-neutral adultery law, the return of section 377 for non-consensual sex between men, women and transgender people, and more clarity on the definitions of community service and life imprisonment.

ALSO READ: MHA to now review other pre-Independence acts

Two prominent Opposition members -- former Union minister and Congress leader P Chidambaram and Trinamool Congress’s Rajya Sabha floor leader Derek O’Brien -- have written to Lal, opposing any haste in adopting the report and suggesting that more time should be spent on reviewing the three bills, according to the people cited above.

Opposition members are also set to express reservations on the presence of some provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and other anti-terror laws in BNS, and object to additional powers to magistrates to order finger impressions and voice samples from a person who has not been arrested.

The draft BNS has provisions of UAPA, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act and Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002. The last two currently stand repealed.

“We are strongly opposed to introducing provisions of terror law in a general law,” said a senior Opposition leader, requesting anonymity.

Another non-BJP leader said the provision for community service for petty offences is a welcome step. But the Opposition might object to the empowerment of metropolitan and judicial magistrates to order finger impressions and voice samples from a person who has not been arrested.

The government, which introduced the three bills on the last day of the monsoon session in the Lok Sabha and then sent it to the panel for review, is expected to bring the key pieces of legislation in the upcoming winter session.

Chidambaram objected to a five-day notice for a meeting to discuss and adopt the draft report, said a senior leader.

“The three laws that are sought to be replaced go back to 1860. You will recall the great and long deliberations that took place before the said acts were passed by legislature/ Parliament. If we intend to replace the laws, we must do justice to the subjects,” Chidambaram wrote on October 22.

ALSO READ- Bill to replace CrPC: Panel may propose no handcuffs in financial crimes

The former Union home minister also said in the letter that there was no need to rush things before the end of October, according to a close aide. “The next session of Parliament is at least four weeks away, may be more,” he wrote. O’Brien, too, flagged his concerns.

"Hasteful and impulsive adoption of such an important report will have negative implications and will turn out counterproductive. Hastily rushing through the process is not doing justice to this important proposed legislation.” he wrote in the letter dated October 23.

Opposition leaders maintain they would have no option but to submit dissent notes if the report is adopted without extensive discussions. The Opposition might also question the credentials of some experts who have deposed before the panel. “We submitted a list of eminent jurists and experts to be called as witness. Only two people from our list have been called to depose so far,” alleged a third senior Opposition member.

“There is an alarming lack of consultation with stakeholders and rush in the nature of this process of consideration of Bills. The laws that are being examined are going to last over 100 years and such a hasty adoption of the reports without consultation of stakeholders would be premature and counterproductive,” O’Brien wrote to Lal, people familiar with the matter said.

The draft codes were prepared after a panel of experts, also known as the Committee for Reforms in Criminal Laws, appointed by the home ministry, worked on the changes in the criminal laws starting 2020 and gave detailed recommendations to the government. The home ministry also consulted states and other experts regarding the changes.

IPC, which deals with a majority of criminal offences, was enacted by the British in 1860. It was adopted by the Indian government after Independence and was amended around 77 times.

The panel will next meet on October 27, when the report is likely to be submitted. It started deliberating on the three laws from mid-August.