Justice Sathasivam said that the three new laws are meant to overhaul the criminal justice system in the country and make the system more citizen friendly.



Three new criminal laws much needed but their names should be in English: Former CJI P Sathasivam

The new laws are set to replace the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and the Indian Evidence Act and will come into effect on July 1.

Former Chief Justice of India P Sathasivam

Former Chief Justice of India P Sathasivam

Ayesha Arvind

Published on: 

24 Jun 2024, 5:24 pm

3 min read

Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) and former Kerala Governor P Sathasivam has urged the Central government to retain the English names for the three new criminal laws – the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.

The new laws are set to replace the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and the Indian Evidence Act and will come into effect on July 1.

The former CJI said that he was going to send an official communication to the Union government, the Law Minister and the Law Secretary asking them to retain the existing English nomenclatures of the criminal laws in the country, considering that Article 348 of the Indian Constitution too mandate that all proceedings in the Supreme Court and in every High Court shall be in English.

The former CJI was speaking at a private event organised by the Vellore Institute of Technology’s School of Law in Chennai.

In his address, Justice Sathasivam said that the three new laws are meant to overhaul the criminal justice system in the country and make the system more citizen friendly.

The changes are much needed, especially considering that the IPC, the CrPC and the Evidence Act were all framed by the British in the 1800s, he said.

“These laws were formulated by the British in the 1860s and 1870s. Why I mention this is because people are criticizing the move, questioning the need to bring in the new laws. The only problem is that I cannot comfortably pronounce these names. As the former CJI, I am going to even make a request to the Law Minister concerned, to the law secretary and the government.  I am going to point out there is a provision in the Constitution under Article 348 for keeping everything in the English language,” he said.

The retired judge further said that he had read all the new provisions twice over and yet, there existed several provisions that he had not “fully understood.”

“The Government of India considered it expedient to review the three laws to simplify the legal procedures to ensure ease of living for common man and provide speedy justice. My anxiety is that the impact and changes of these laws must reach all the police personnel in the State, all citizens, all law officers, particularly the public prosecutors, and all judges. I read them twice over and yet, there exist some provisions that I haven’t understood fully.”

Hence, in order to ensure its seamless enforcement, there should be training programmes for judges and the police, the former CJI suggested.

“We have to create several training programmes for our judicial officers and the police, as no errors should be made during court hearings. No mistakes in the FIR can be afforded. I verified from the parliamentary proceedings, various stakeholders were consulted keeping in mind the contemporary needs and aspirations of the people and to create a citizen friendly legal structure that secures their lives and liberty,” Sathasivam said.

The event was also attended by Madras High Court Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) R Mahadevan, Union Minister of Law Arjun Ram Meghwal and all puisne judges of the Madras high Court.

ACJ Mahadevan said that the Madras High Court has constituted a committee of judges to overhaul the criminal rules of practice to bring suitable changes in the rolls in consonance with the new criminal laws.

He also announced that a three day seminar on the three new laws will be held for all principal district judges and chief judicial magistrates in Tamil Nadu (TN) at the TN judicial academy in Chennai from June 26 to 28.

Madras High Court

Chief Justice P Sathasivam

new criminal laws

Acting CJ R Mahadevan


Documents show Delhi LG issued directions to cut trees in violation of court orders: Supreme Court

A special bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan took exception to the felling of the tress and said that two documents placed before the Court showed LG’s involvement in the same.

Supreme Court, Delhi LG Vinai Saxena

Supreme Court, Delhi LG Vinai Saxena

Anadi Tewari

Published on: 

24 Jun 2024, 6:59 pm

3 min read

The Supreme Court on Monday asked Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to clarify whether directions to cut around 1,100 trees in Delhi’s ridge forest area in violation of the Court’s orders were issued by Lieutenant Governor Vinai Saxena in his capacity as DDA Chairperson [Bindu Kapurea v. Subhasish Panda].

A special bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan took exception to the felling of the tress and said that two documents placed before the Court showed LG’s involvement in the same.

“What is this? This is such a brazen act. Two documents placed on record clearly say that it was LG,” the Court remarked.

The Court sought clarity in this regard.

“We want to know who exactly committed the breach of our order. If nobody responds, we would be inclined to say LG issued directions,” the Court said in response.

The Court noted that all facts related to the felling were not on record and underlined the necessity of a detailed enquiry.

“We find that all the facts relating to felling of trees have not come on record. We see that the LG approved the felling of trees. We feel that a detailed enquiry has to be taken place after the notices are being served to the (DDA) officers. We are not going to take this lightly. If the authority (DDA) is not going to conform to protection of environment, this court has to come to rescue and affirm it clearly that environment protection cannot be taken lightly,” the Court said.

Amidst the hearing, the Court also questioned Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for DDA, regarding the involvement of the LG.

“As per this, it is being depicted that it was the Lieutenant Governor (LG) who gave the instructions to you to proceed with the cutting of trees. We need answers as to who exactly issued these directions? More than 1100 trees have been cut, I will not say anything more on this? is the chairman responsible for this? This is an extremely serious issue. That is why we issued contempt,” Justice Oka said.

Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan

Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan

The Court was hearing a suo motu contempt of court case against DDA Vice Chairman Subhashish Panda for felling of trees in violation of the Court’s orders.

Based on a report of the DDA constituted committee to probe the issue, the Court noted that some emails indicated a site visit by the LG on February 3, 2024, following which the LG issued directions to cut the trees.

It further observed that the committee had not probed the contents of the email and had entirely blamed three DDA officers.

As per the affidavit of the Vice Chairman, the Court noted that there has been a play of shifting of blame being done on the officers stating that they were responsible for direction of felling of the trees and violating the top court’s order.

Therefore, the Court issued contempt notice to the officers Manoj Kumar Yadav (Executive Engineer), Pawan Kumar (Assistant Engineer), Ayush Saraswat (Assistant Engineer) and Pankaj Verma (Sub Engineer) of DDA to enable a detailed enquiry.

In light of the doubts expressed by it, the Court also directed DDA Vice Chairman to file an additional affidavit.

Further, the Court also took strong exception to the appointment of judicial officers as legal advisors of the DDA and remarked that this act violated the principle of separation of powers and independence of judiciary.

“It is clear that the DDA is the major litigant before the Delhi High Court and some of the serving officers are serving as legal advisors to it. We immediately direct our registry to place this order before the Registrar General of Delhi High Court who will then place it before Acting Chief justice to take further action on this. We cannot allow this kind of grave violation,” it said.

The Court emphasized the necessity for clear regulations under the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act for prohibiting tree felling without Supreme Court permission.

The matter will be heard again on June 26.

[Read Live Coverage]


Supreme Court of India

Delhi Development Authority

LG Vinai Kumar Saxena


Punjab and Haryana High Court allows student booked for murder to appear for LLM exam

The Court noted that if the accused student is not permitted to appear for the exam, it would cause him irreparable loss and jeopardize his career.

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Shashwat Singh

Published on: 

24 Jun 2024, 5:43 pm

3 min read

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently ordered that arrangements be made to enable a final year LLM student (petitioner) imprisoned on murder charges to appear for his second-semester examination [Prabal Titus V. State of Punjab and Others].

Justice Vikas Bahl reasoned that if the petitioner is not permitted to appear for his examination, he would not be able to complete his course, which would jeopardize his career.

“In case the petitioner is not permitted to give the said exams, then, the same would cause irreparable loss to the petitioner, inasmuch as, he will not be able to complete his LLM (Corporate Laws) and the same would jeopardize his future, therefore, the present petition is allowed,” the Court said.

The Court also noted that the petitioner was a meritorious student, being an LLB graduate with an 8.01 out of 10 CGPA who had done 25 online courses from various foreign universities.

Justice Vikas Bahl

Justice Vikas BahlADMIN

The petitioner had approached the High Court challenging a lower court order denying him permission to appear for his exam.

The lower court had denied permission on the ground that the petitioner had not been able to produce any ‘admit card’ issued by his university which would confirm that the petitioner was qualified to appear for exams.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that he had been falsely implicated in the murder case. He urged for permission to attend his LLM exam by arguing that his right to life included his right to an education.

Meanwhile, the university clarified that it does not issue any separate admit card for appearing in examinations and that the student can appear in the examination by just showing the student ID card, which had already been issued to the petitioner.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner had also moved an application before the jail authorities for permission to write the exam.

However, the district jail superintendent declined to grant permission after noting that the jail manual only permits the petitioner to be provided with the facilities for continuing studies inside the jail premises. The authority replied that the jail superintendent on his own could not send the applicant outside the jail for his examination. The superintendent said that the Court’s intervention was required to issue appropriate directions in this regard.

The State contended that since the petitioner was booked in a murder case, the exam could be written by the petitioner while remaining in police custody if at all his request to take the exam is allowed. The State added that the petitioner should bear the expenses for setting up arrangements to write the exam while remaining in policy custody.

The Court, however, allowed the petitioner to take his exams at the University. The Court also ordered the State to deploy adequate police personnel as security to take the petitioner to the exam hall and ensure his return to jail after the exam.

To this end, the Court issued the following directions:

1. Petitioner would deposit an amount of ₹75,000, as per the directions of the State;

2. State would depute an adequate number of police personnel to take the petitioner from jail to the examination centre on the days on which the four exams are to be held.

3. After each exam is over, the police personnel, who have been deputed by the State would take the petitioner back to the jail.

4. The university is directed to permit the petitioner to take the said four exams on the petitioner showing his identity card.

5. The university is further directed to ensure that the police personnel accompanying the petitioner are allowed to sit in a place where the petitioner is visible to them throughout the examination. The concerned police personnel are directed to keep a strict vigil on the petitioner so that the petitioner does not escape.

Advocate Kanwalvir Singh Kang appeared for the petitioner. Senior Deputy Attorney General of Punjab NS Diwana represented the State. Advocate Deepak Singh Saini represented the university.

[Read Order]



Prabal Titus V. State of Punjab and Others.pdf


Punjab and Haryana High Court

LLM Student

Section 302 of IPC


Bengaluru court sends Prajwal Revanna to judicial custody till July 8

Special Magistrate KN Shivakumar sent Revanna to judicial custody in the sexual abuse case registered against him after his SIT custody ended today.

City Civil Court Bengaluru, Prajwal Revanna

City Civil Court Bengaluru, Prajwal RevannaPrajwal Revanna (FB)

Siddesh M

Published on: 

24 Jun 2024, 4:36 pm

1 min read

A Bengaluru court on Monday sent former Janata Dal (Secular) Member of Parliament (MP) Prajwal Revanna to judicial custody till July 8 in connection with the sexual abuse case filed against him.

Special Magistrate KN Shivakumar sent Revanna to judicial custody after his special investigation team (SIT) custody ended today.

Revanna’s SIT custody was extended by four days on June 19. After the period today, SIT did not seek further extension of custody.

Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Ashok Naik told Bar and Bench that on June 25, Tuesday, Prajwal Revanna will be produced virtually before the Court. After arguments, he may be sent to SIT Custody in the fourth case against him filed alleging molestation.

The sexual abuse allegations against Prajwal Revanna emerged after over 2,900 videos depicting the sexual assault of several women were circulated on social media.

On April 28, a first information report (FIR) was registered against Prajwal Revanna and his father HD Revanna under Sections 354A (sexual harassment), 354D (stalking), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 509 (insult to modesty of woman) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at the Holenaraseepur town police station, Hassan district. 

The criminal case was registered on a complaint filed by one of the victims. An SIT led by senior Indian Police Service (IPS) officer BK Singh probed the case. 

Amid the outrage and political storm that followed, Prajwal Revanna fled to Germany soon after the April 26 Lok Sabha polls in the State. He returned to India during the early hours of May 31 and was immediately arrested.

Just before his return, Prajwal Revanna moved a Bengaluru court for anticipatory bail in the three cases connected to the sexual abuse allegations against him.

judicial custody

Bengaluru City Civil Court

prajwal revanna


Bengaluru court sends Suraj Revanna to CID custody till July 1 in sexual abuse case filed by man

Suraj Revanna was arrested by the Hassan police on June 23 following a complaint by a man who alleged that Revanna had engaged in sexual intercourse with him at Gannigada Farm House in Channarayapatna taluk.

Suraj Revanna

Suraj RevannaInstagram

Siddesh M

Published on: 

24 Jun 2024, 4:04 pm

2 min read

A Bengaluru Court on Monday handed over Karnataka Member of Legislative Council (MLC) Dr Suraj Revanna, elder son of HD Revanna and brother of Prajwal Revanna, to the custody of Karnataka Police Criminal Investigation Department (CID) till July 1 in connection with a sexual abuse case filed by a young man.

Magistrate KN Shivakumar passed the order on a request made by the CID.

The Court had earlier remanded Suraj to judicial custody for 14 days.

The State then handed over the probe in the case to the CID pursuant to which Suraj’s police custody was sought.

Suraj Revanna was arrested by the Hassan police on June 23 following his interrogation at Hassan’s cyber station on Saturday evening.

A First Information Report (FIR) was registered against Suraj under Sections 377 (unnatural offences), 342 (illegal detention), 506 (criminal intimidation), 34 (act committed by several persons for a common intention) based on a complaint filed by a youth.

The youth had complained to the Director General of Police (DGP) and the Home Minister that Suraj Revanna had engaged in sexual intercourse with him at Gannigada Farm House in Channarayapatna taluk.

The young man requested appropriate action, alleging that he and his family were threatened by Revanna and his close friend Shivakumar of Hanumanahalli village.

The case was transferred to Holenarseepur Rural Police Station. Accordingly, a statement was obtained from the complainant on Saturday, and an FIR was registered. Earlier today, the DGP transferred the case to Crime Investigation Department (CID).

Notably, on Friday, Shivakumar had also filed a complaint against the complainant-man at Holenarasipur City Police Station. He alleged that the youth had threatened to accuse Revanna of sexual assault if he did not help him find a job. Shivakumar also claimed that the young man had demanded ₹5 crore to refrain from filing the false complaint.

Bengaluru Court

Suraj Revanna

Follow Us



Copyright © 2021 Bar and Bench. All Rights Reserved

Powered by Quintype

You may also like...