New Delhi (Agency): New Delhi witnessed discontent among some members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs. The committee, set to discuss three crucial criminal law bills, has been confronted with objections over the short notice given to members to participate in meetings scheduled for these discussions.
At least three prominent members of the committee, including TMC’s Derek O’Brien and Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar, and Congress leader Digvijay Singh, have expressed their concerns. They have written to the committee chairman Brijlal, questioning the scheduling of the meetings on August 24, 25, and 26, and demanding a revision of the dates.
The key legislations up for discussion are the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill, 2023, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Bill, 2023, and Bharatiya Sakhshya Bill, 2023. These bills seek to transform the Indian criminal justice system by replacing existing laws like the Indian Penal Code 1860, the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Originally, the committee was set to meet on August 24 to adopt a draft report on ‘Prison-Condition Infrastructure and Reforms,’ a topic that has been under deliberation for an extended period. This meeting had previously seen opposition members walk out in protest, unhappy with the committee’s failure to discuss the Manipur issue.
A new notice was dispatched to members on August 18, informing them that Home Secretary Ajay Kumar Bhalla would brief them on various aspects of the three bills on August 24, 25, and 26. Some members found this surprising and in stark contrast to the committee’s previous approach.
In his letter, Derek O’Brien stressed the urgency of the matter, stating, “This is too short a notice (a few days only) for discussion of a Bill with implications of this magnitude. Please revise the dates and schedule it in the month of September, considering that many members of the committee are present for these meetings.”
Another unnamed member pointed out that the bills were referred to the committee and scheduled for deliberations on the same day. This quick action was unexpected and seemed rushed, especially since previous requests for discussions on other critical matters had been ignored.
The situation underscores the complex dynamics within the committee and highlights the need for clear communication and consideration of members’ schedules and concerns. The outcome of this disagreement may influence the subsequent discussions and implementation of these significant legal reforms, which could redefine the Indian criminal justice system.
