NEW DELHI: The Standing Committee on Home Affairs will meet on August 24-26 to take up and review the three proposed Bills, which seek to replace the Indian Penal Code, of 1860, the Criminal Procedure Code, of 1898, and the Indian Evidence Act, of 1872.
The three Bills, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill, 2023, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Bill, 2023, and Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023 were introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 11 by Union Home Minister Amit Shah. The Standing Committee headed by BJP Rajya Sabha MP Brijlal, has been given three months to for consultations and submit its reports on the bills.
The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs is of the Rajya Sabha and has members from both Houses of Parliament. Some of the members include Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, DMK’s Dayanidhi Maran, Dilip Ghosh, Derek O Brien, Digvijaya Singh, N.R. Elango, and Rakesh Sinha among others. However, Congress MP Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, a member of the committee, will not be able to attend the meeting as he has been suspended from the Lok Sabha since August 11.
Speaking to this paper, a senior Opposition MP, who is a member of the panel, said that the Opposition parties will place their objections to the panel and demand more time for consultations. He said that there is a lack of consultation before introducing the changes and the amendments were rushed through. “These laws are more than 100 years old and such sweeping changes cannot be done without consultations,” he said.
While Congress has called for wider consultations, DMK, the ruling party of Tamil Nadu, has expressed strong objections against the use of Hindi names in the new criminal laws. While introducing the bills, Shah said it would transform India’s criminal justice system and added the changes were done to provide speedy justice and create a legal system that caters to contemporary needs.
OPPN TO DEMAND MORE TIME FOR SCRUTINY
Opposition parties will place their objections to the panel and demand more time for consultations, said a senior MP. He said that there is a lack of consultation before introducing the changes and the amendments were rushed through