On Monday, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin established a one-man commission under the leadership of retired Madras High Court judge M. Sathyanarayanan. This commission’s primary objective is to review the state’s recently enacted criminal laws and propose necessary amendments. Among its responsibilities, the commission will consider changes to the laws’ content and may suggest new names for them. This move aims to ensure that the laws are up-to-date and effectively address current legal needs. Judge Sathyanarayanan has been given a deadline of one month to thoroughly review the laws and submit his detailed report to the state government.
On July 1, Tamil Nadu saw the implementation of three new laws: the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. These laws have replaced the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Indian Evidence Act, respectively. Recognizing the need to adapt these central laws to the specific needs and context of the state, Chief Minister M.K. Stalin announced the formation of a one-man commission led by retired Madras High Court judge M. Sathyanarayanan. This commission has been entrusted with the critical task of reviewing these new laws and recommending necessary amendments at the state level.
The government emphasised that the commission would engage in extensive consultations with Bar Associations and other relevant stakeholders across Tamil Nadu. This inclusive approach ensures that the perspectives and insights of those directly affected by the laws are considered. Judge Sathyanarayanan will assess the new legal framework, focusing on how it aligns with the state’s requirements and legal traditions. Additionally, the commission will explore the possibility of renaming these laws to better reflect their objectives and relevance to the people of Tamil Nadu.
The state government has set a deadline of one month for Judge Sathyanarayanan to complete his review and submit his recommendations. This initiative underscores the government’s commitment to ensuring that the state’s legal system is both effective and tailored to its unique context.
The Tamil Nadu government has voiced strong criticism against the recent enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. These laws, which took effect on July 1 and replaced the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Indian Evidence Act, respectively, were passed by the Union government in December 2023. The state government has condemned the manner in which these laws were passed, arguing that they were enacted hastily and without adequate discussion.
The decision to suspend 146 Members of Parliament during the passage of these laws further fueled criticism, as it prevented a comprehensive debate and discussion. Moreover, the government highlighted that the laws were named in Sanskrit, which they claim is contrary to constitutional provisions.
This unilateral approach has sparked widespread protests and agitations across the country, as people express their dissatisfaction with both the content of the laws and the process by which they were implemented. The Tamil Nadu government’s objections underscore a broader concern about the need for inclusive and deliberative legislative processes that respect the federal structure and ensure that all voices, especially those at the state level, are heard and considered.
The Tamil Nadu government has expressed significant criticism regarding the recent introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. Effective from July 1, these laws replaced the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Indian Evidence Act. The state government condemned the passage of these laws by the Union government in December 2023, arguing that they were rushed through without sufficient discussion.
According to Tamil Nadu officials, the Union government failed to consider the state’s perspectives or those of its Members of Parliament, who are meant to reflect public opinion. The suspension of 146 Members of Parliament during the legislative process exacerbated the situation, as it curtailed meaningful debate. Additionally, the state government criticized the naming of the laws in Sanskrit, arguing that this move violates constitutional provisions.
This approach has led to widespread protests and agitations nationwide, with people discontented not only with the substance of the laws but also with the manner in which they were enacted. Tamil Nadu’s objections highlight the broader issue of the need for a more inclusive and deliberative legislative process, one that respects the federal structure and ensures that all voices, especially those from the states, are heard and considered.
Widespread protests and agitations have erupted nationwide against the three new acts, passed by the Union government in December 2023. Critics argue that the laws were enacted hastily and without proper discussion, especially since 146 Members of Parliament, who represent the people’s views, were suspended during the process.
In response to the situation, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin formed a one-man commission led by retired Madras High Court judge M. Sathyanarayanan. This decision came after a meeting with top state officials, including Water Resources Minister Duraimurugan, Advocate General P.S. Raman, Chief Secretary Shiv Das Meena, Home Secretary P. Amudha, and DGP Shankar Jiwal. Despite the DMK-led government’s opposition to the new laws, the Tamil Nadu police have been implementing the changes.
The Federation of Bar Associations of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, representing over 265 bar associations, welcomed the opportunity to propose amendments to the new criminal laws in Tamil Nadu. They seek to address concerns such as retaining English names, maintaining section order, and resolving procedural issues in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Before their implementation, Chief Minister Stalin wrote to Union Home Minister Amit Shah urging a review of the new laws, emphasising the need to consider state views and stakeholders’ input.
