Former Delhi High Court Justice (Retd) R.S. Sodhi said that India is a ‘growing and vibrant society’ in which no one can have static laws.
Senior Advocates Vikas Singh and Vikas Pahwa submitted that these laws were ‘obsolete laws’ of the colonial era and needed to be abolished.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan said, “However, changing the names of these laws to English words is “completely meaningless” in a judicial system that operates mostly in English.”
A prominent voice against the laws made during the British rule, lawyer J.J. Sai Deepak said that though he has not studied the Bills, he is glad that at least the names of these laws have been changed.
Home Minister Amit Shah on Friday introduced three new Bills in the Lok Sabha to replace the British-era IPC, CrPC and the Indian Evidence Act and said that now the law of sedition is being completely abolished.
Shah introduced the Indian Judicial Code Bill, 2023 in the House; Introduced the Indian Civil Defense Code Bill, 2023 and the Indian Evidence Bill, 2023. These will replace the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, respectively. He said that these changes were made to provide speedy justice and to create a legal system that takes into account the contemporary needs and aspirations of the people.
Commenting on the government’s move, Justice (retd) Sodhi said that wherever there is a need for change, it should be brought and any law which is for the betterment of the society should be welcomed.
He said, ‘In a vibrant society, laws also have to be changed. You cannot have static laws.’
When asked about the proposed provision for the first time to do community service as punishment for minor offences, Justice (Retd) Sodhi said, “The introduction of community service as punishment for minor offenses is a good thing, because Sending someone to jail for small things does not help anyone.
Expressing his opinion on this move of the government, Vikas Singh said, ‘This is something that should be appreciated.’ He, however, raised the issue of naming these bills in English and said that the names of these laws should not be in English as it is not the official language of the courts.
Singh said that those who are not familiar with English would find it difficult to understand the names of these proposed Acts.
Supporting his point, Sankaranarayanan said that these changes in nomenclature are meaningless.
“I have not gone through the Bills in detail, but at least the renaming is completely redundant in a judicial system that largely runs on the English language, especially in the Supreme Court where it rules on behalf of the Constitution itself,” he said. Provided that the language of the court is English.
Senior advocate Vikas Pahwa said, ‘The three major criminal acts were enacted more than a hundred years ago and were in dire need of amendment. As a criminal lawyer, I have always felt that the procedure of trial, definition of penal offenses and laws of evidence are archaic, need to be overhauled and have to be kept pace with modern India. Any law made on these lines will be conducive to the criminal justice system of our country.