Supreme Court Scheduled to Examine Constitutional Challenges to Key Criminal Law Reform Bills
The Supreme Court of India has set December 18, 2024, as the hearing date for crucial writ petitions challenging specific provisions of two landmark criminal law reform bills: the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and the Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita (BNS). This significant development comes through a directive issued by a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, responding to petitions filed by the Mannargudi Bar Association and retired BSF Commandant Azad Singh Kataria.
Key Takeaways:
- The Mannargudi Bar Association’s petition specifically challenges four BNSS provisions dealing with fundamental aspects of criminal procedure, including handcuffing regulations, property attachment, complaint case procedures, and trials in absentia.
- The petition by retired BSF Commandant Kataria presents a broader challenge, questioning provisions in both BNSS and BNS, particularly focusing on organized crime, terrorism, sedition, and police investigation procedures.
- The challenged sections of BNSS include critical procedural aspects such as investigation timelines, police officer authorization requirements, and complainant examination procedures.
- Significant provisions under scrutiny from the BNS include Section 111 (Organized Crime), Section 113 (Terrorism), and Section 152 (Sedition), addressing fundamental aspects of criminal justice.
- The hearing represents a crucial examination of the constitutional validity of these new criminal law reforms, which aim to replace existing colonial-era criminal laws.
- The Supreme Court’s decision to hear these petitions indicates the judiciary’s role in ensuring that new criminal law provisions align with constitutional principles and fundamental rights
Supreme Court Reinforces Equal Treatment Principle: Litigation Benefits Extend to Similarly Situated Non-Litigants
In a landmark decision on December 09, 2024, the Supreme Court of India reinforced a fundamental legal principle while granting permanent commission to a female army officer who hadn’t pursued litigation. The bench, comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan, emphasized that citizens in similar situations should receive equal benefits from favorable court declarations without the necessity of individual litigation.
Key Takeaways:
- The Supreme Court affirmed that when one citizen obtains a favorable legal declaration against government action, others in similar circumstances should receive the same benefits without filing separate cases.
- This principle was applied practically by granting permanent commission to a female army officer who hadn’t personally pursued litigation, demonstrating the Court’s commitment to equitable treatment.
- The ruling drew support from significant precedents, including the Amrit Lal Berry and K.I. Shephard cases, which established the foundation for extending legal benefits to non-litigating parties.
- The Court recognized exceptions to this principle, specifically in cases where the court explicitly prohibits benefit extension to non-litigants or when the grievance addressed is uniquely personal (in personam).
- The judgment reinforces the principle of administrative efficiency by preventing unnecessary multiplication of litigation while ensuring equal treatment.
- This ruling significantly impacts government departments’ approach to similar cases, promoting uniform application of judicial decisions across comparable situations.
Supreme Court Addresses Women’s Safety: Issues Notice on Comprehensive PIL for Pan-India Guidelines
On December 16, 2024, a significant development in women’s safety advocacy occurred as the Supreme Court issued notices to the Union and State governments regarding a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association (SCWLA). The PIL, presented before Justices Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, seeks comprehensive pan-India guidelines for women’s safety, marking a crucial step towards addressing systemic issues in women’s protection.
Key Takeaways:
- The SCWLA’s PIL, presented by Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani, emphasizes the critical need for nationwide reforms and measures to protect vulnerable women, highlighting the gap between existing laws and their implementation.
- The petition invokes the doctrine of parens patriae, urging the Court to act as guardian and protector of fundamental rights for women, children, and the third gender, encompassing safety, workplace security, and personal dignity.
- Justice Kant acknowledged the innovative nature of certain proposals, particularly highlighting the suggestion for guidelines on social behavior in public transport, which he deemed “extremely important” for both teaching and public display.
- The petition specifically addressed contemporary challenges by seeking restrictions on online pornography and unfiltered obscene content on OTT platforms, drawing a connection between media content and violence against women.
- The timing of the hearing coincided with the 12th anniversary of the Nirbhaya case, with the petitioners citing recent incidents like the RG Kar Medical Hospital tragedy to emphasize the continuing challenges in women’s safety.
- This case represents a significant effort to establish standardized safety measures for women across India, combining both preventive measures and systemic reforms in public spaces and digital platforms.
Supreme Court Mandates Women’s Representation in Delhi Bar Association Elections
In a progressive move towards gender equality in legal institutions, the Supreme Court of India has issued significant directives mandating the reservation of positions for women lawyers in the upcoming Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) elections. This decision, delivered by Justices Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, extends the principle of gender representation previously implemented in the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) elections.
Key Takeaways:
- The Supreme Court has specifically reserved three key positions for women lawyers in the DHCBA elections: Treasurer, Designated Senior Member Executive, and a member from the senior designation category.
- The Court’s directive extends to District Bar Associations, mandating that the Treasurer position and 30% of Executive Committee posts be reserved for women lawyers.
- This decision builds upon the earlier implementation of 33% women’s reservation in the Supreme Court Bar Association elections, demonstrating a consistent approach to improving gender representation.
- The Court actively engaged with DHCBA leadership, specifically directing President Mohit Mathur to ensure immediate and amicable resolution of women’s reservation issues.
- This ruling represents a significant step toward ensuring meaningful participation of women lawyers in bar association governance and decision-making processes.
- The Court’s intervention indicates a systematic approach to addressing gender representation across different levels of bar associations in Delhi’s legal system.
