LAWYERS across the country are mobilising demanding the central NDA government to suspend the implementation of three new criminal laws. In Tamil Nadu, state-level Advocates Associations and the Bar Association have united to form a Joint Action Council. On July 8, they organised a rally and demonstration in Tiruchi, where leaders of several political parties voiced their support for the lawyers' cause.

On July 10, advocates responded to the Joint Action Council's call by organising protests at railway stations and boycotted court until July 12. The chief minister of Tamil Nadu has announced the establishment of a One-Man Commission, headed by a retired High Court Judge, tasked with recommending revisions to the three Acts in question. Meanwhile, the CPI (M) and DMK have actively engaged in various forms of agitation on these issues in the State. AIADMK also conducted a demonstration in solidarity with the lawyers' protest. Except for the BJP, all other political parties oppose the implementation of the three new laws.

Why did the NDA government suddenly announce the implementation of three new laws - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha 2023, and Bharatiya Sakshya Acts, 2023. These laws replace the IPC, Cr. PC, and the Indian Evidence Act starting from July 1st. There appears to be a calculated strategy behind the actions of Modi and Amit Shah. Since 2014, the BJP-led government under Modi's leadership has introduced and amended numerous laws aligning with their core agenda - promoting corporate interests and fostering communal ties. Whenever the BJP gains power at the central or state level, the RSS wields substantial influence over government machinery, particularly evident since Modi, a pracharak, assumed office as Prime Minister.

The most significant change implemented in the UAPA was the amendment to section 35. This amendment granted the central government the authority to designate an individual as a terrorist under section 4 of the UAPA Act. Previously, only organizations could be labeled as terrorists, not individuals. However, with the amended Act, individuals can now be apprehended solely based on their speech, even if their speech does not incite violence or result in any direct actions. This change expands the scope of the Act and raises concerns regarding civil liberties.

After the BJP came to power in 2014, amendments to the PMLA Act made it significantly harder for those detained under it to obtain bail. This shift undermines the cornerstone of criminal justice, which guarantees the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven. The enactment of stringent laws such as UAPA and amended PMLA appears to have instituted a concerning precedent: the presumption of guilt rather than innocence, particularly evident in bail proceedings.

Since 2014, the BJP-led central government has effectively consolidated power through a centralized administration, deftly avoiding the formal declaration of a state of emergency. This strategy involves utilizing various governmental agencies such as the CBI, NIA, ED, Income Tax department, among others. The judiciary, too, has not escaped this influence, facing both direct and indirect pressures on its autonomy and functioning from the BJP government.

Amendments to the UAPA, PMLA, and the Cinematography Act have granted the central government the power to ban a feature film even after it has received clearance from the censor board, extending its reach into cultural matters. However, despite these legislative changes, the BJP failed to secure a majority in the 18th Lok Sabha election.

Despite not securing an absolute majority in the Lok Sabha election, Modi appears undeterred, continuing along the same path. A political analyst observed, “being Modi, he would seek avenues to overcome this insult.  Hence the worst is yet to come”.  Shortly after Modi's third term as Prime Minister began with a swearing-in ceremony, several incidents of violence against Muslims occurred in BJP-ruled states. In Chhattisgarh, three cattle transporters were killed, with similar attacks reported in Mandla, Madhya Pradesh, and Jodhpur, Rajasthan, allegedly carried out by the Sangh Parivar.

Following Narendra Modi's reelection for a third term as Prime Minister, the government has decided to detain and initiate legal proceedings against Arundhati Roy for a speech she delivered a decade ago. It has been decided to arrest Mohammed Zubair, a journalist, fact-checker, and co-founder of Alt News, an Indian non-profit organization specializing in fact-checking.

The NDA government, under Modi's leadership, proceeded with the implementation of three criminal laws on July 1, despite significant opposition and appeals from civil society and the legal community to proceed cautiously. This decision underscores their authoritarian and fascist agenda unmistakably.

The apparent removal of sedition as an offense in section 124A of the Indian Penal Code seems deceptive, designed to mislead the public. However, the BNS Act has introduced even more stringent provisions in section 152, significantly broadening its scope. Now, merely expressing concerns of any group, whether based on language, geography, or other grounds, can be deemed a crime against the State, punishable by life imprisonment.

Under the new legislation, it is no longer mandatory for the police to promptly file a First Information Report (FIR) in straightforward cases. Instead, they are now authorized to conduct a preliminary investigation within fourteen days, potentially leading to abuses of power by the officer in charge. Furthermore, the law grants excessive authority to detain individuals participating in peaceful protests against state injustices, without the requirement to present them before a Magistrate within 24 hours. Additionally, the legislation allows the police to detain the accused for up to 90 days, a stark departure from the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which limit police custody to a maximum of 15 days.

Under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), it is specified that only a magistrate has the authority to detain an accused individual. Furthermore, only an executive magistrate is authorised to order the armed forces to disperse an assembly. However, Section 149 of the BNSS expands this authority to include a tahsildar, thereby granting the executive excessive and unrestricted power to deploy armed forces to disperse assemblies.

The three bills were introduced in parliament without prior public access to the drafts, which violates Constitutional principles and undermines civil liberties. Furthermore, the bills were not referred to the Law Commission nor subjected to consultation before their enactment, which raises constitutional concerns.

There are several shortcomings in the implementation of these laws, with many provisions needing substantial revisions. Consequently, not only legal professionals but also members of civil society and the entire opposition are calling for the suspension and thorough review of these laws.

The nationwide protests by lawyers are not just about the undemocratic manner in which these laws were passed but also about the authoritarian measures accompanying them.