Understanding New Criminal Laws & Their Implications; In Conversation with SC Advocate Ramakant Gaur

  • 2 months ago
Join Oneindia News for an exclusive conversation with Ramakant Gaur, Advocate at the Supreme Court, as we delve into the newly introduced criminal laws and their far-reaching implications. In this in-depth interview, Mr. Gaur provides expert insights on the changes, their impact on the judicial system, and what they mean for the common citizen. Don't miss this opportunity to get a comprehensive understanding of the evolving legal landscape in India.


#CriminalLawReform #RamakantGaur #SupremeCourt #OneindiaNews #LegalInsights #JudicialSystem #IndiaLaw #LegalReforms #ExclusiveInterview #CriminalLaws #NewCriminalLaws #SupremeCourtAdvocate
~HT.178~PR.274~ED.102~GR.124~
Transcript
00:00Law is not static. It develops by itself. So, in the passage of time, whatever the courts
00:08have said, whether it is about digital evidence, or about marital rape, or about women's safety,
00:16all these things are not in the modern laws of today.
00:21Terror crime was first defined in the UAPA. Now they have brought it in the civil security system.
00:31And if we talk about today's 1st of July, how many cases have been dismissed today?
00:38If they want to see, then we will only express sadness on the number.
00:44Namaskar! Welcome to OneIndia. I am Yogi Franka and with me is Yogi Pankaj Mishra.
00:51We are with you because three new criminal laws have been implemented in the country since today.
00:57They were passed in the parliament last year and now these laws have been implemented since 1st July, 2024.
01:04What was the need to implement these laws? What has changed in them?
01:10What will be the facilities for these people? What kind of problems will there be?
01:13We will discuss all these things and we have a special guest with us, Ramakant Gaur.
01:18Ramakant Gaur is a senior advocate in the Supreme Court of India.
01:21Welcome, Ramakant ji.
01:23Thank you, Yogi.
01:25First, let us tell the name of these new laws.
01:28The three new laws that have been implemented since today are
01:31IPC, which used to be there earlier, has now become Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023.
01:36Since the law was passed last year, it is now 2023.
01:40Then there is Bharatiya Nagraj Suraksha Sanhita, which used to be called CRPC earlier.
01:44Then there is Dand Prakriya Sanhita, which used to be called Dand Prakriya Sanhita in Hindi.
01:48Then there is Evidence Act, which used to be called Bharatiya Saakshya Adhiniyam.
01:53It has now become Bharatiya Saakshya Adhiniyam 2023.
01:56So, these three new laws have been implemented in the country since today.
01:59My first question to Ramakant ji is
02:02Ramakant ji, it is said that colonial laws were in force in our country.
02:08They were in force since British rule.
02:10That is why they needed to be changed.
02:12Was it really necessary?
02:14And have such changes taken place in it?
02:18Look, when we point towards colonial British rule,
02:25then the discussions might become political or intellectual.
02:32The society is progressive.
02:35The law of 1860 has become impractical today.
02:40At that time, it was not possible to talk about digital evidence.
02:45Today, we cannot talk about it without a digital format.
02:49At that time, there used to be a search seizure.
02:52At that time, we could not talk about audio-visual evidence.
02:55Today, we cannot work without it.
03:00When it comes to investigation,
03:02look, the law has changed in three ways.
03:04When you have taken the name of three laws,
03:06let me explain it in a practical aspect for the audience.
03:09The first thing that has changed is that the definition of crimes
03:14and the provision of their punishment have changed.
03:17The second thing that has changed is that
03:19the time required for the trial course has been decided.
03:27Some investigation procedures have been changed.
03:30And the witnesses, how will the courts take them?
03:37How will they get approval?
03:39To what extent will the witness be admissible?
03:43Will it be called primary evidence?
03:45Will it be called secondary evidence?
03:47How will its forensic analysis be done?
03:50And which agency will do its forensic analysis?
03:54And how will the search and seizure be done?
03:57How will the arrest be done?
03:59How will the information be given to the magistrate after the arrest?
04:02If there is a case of suicide,
04:04how will it be informed to the SDM within the stipulated period?
04:09All these provisions have been changed.
04:11So, it was not necessary to change them.
04:16It was necessary.
04:18Today, we are standing on the brink of that necessity.
04:22But yes, at the same time, I will say one thing.
04:25Some laws are very impractical.
04:27For example, it is said that the charge should be framed within 60 days.
04:31The trial should be completed within 180 days.
04:34Is this possible?
04:35You don't have that many magistrates.
04:37If you are a magistrate with more than 10 lakhs,
04:41then how is this possible?
04:43In fact, today, the Home Minister has also said that
04:48the delay in justice,
04:51he has talked about speedy justice.
04:53Today, when he was speaking in the Parliament,
04:55how to speed up the speed of justice.
04:59Mr. Gautam, I would like to know from you,
05:02because you talked about admissibility in the court.
05:05There is also a matter of technical use
05:08to assess the crime or to collect the evidence.
05:12If we talk like a common man,
05:15then in the judicial process,
05:19or organized crime or terrorism,
05:22what kind of change do you see from the old penal court to this one?
05:28See, terror crime was first defined in the UAPA.
05:32Now they have brought it to the IP.
05:34Now they have brought it to the Civil Protection Agency.
05:38The Terrorist Act was defined in the UAPA.
05:42So this definition was taken from there,
05:45imported from there and brought here.
05:48If we talk about sedition,
05:50the offences of sedition,
05:52where a lot of people were persecuted,
05:54you and I have seen a lot,
05:56and our journalist friends have also suffered a lot.
05:59At least there will be a reduction in that.
06:01There will definitely be a reduction in that.
06:03Investigation, yes,
06:05because in the courts,
06:07the courts have also said this,
06:09that you cannot bring this crime in sedition,
06:15if a journalist writes something against the government,
06:18and you file a case of sedition against him,
06:20and whoever the government is.
06:22So that was very uncivilized.
06:25It was not just at all.
06:27And the constitutional courts of the country
06:31gave their response continuously
06:33and considered it wrong.
06:35We would like to understand this a little more from you, Mr. Ramakant.
06:39Because the sedition you talked about,
06:42the state sedition was removed and national sedition was done,
06:46that it has been integrated into one.
06:48Now what will be the definition in this?
06:51As far as we were looking at things,
06:54it is also there that through electronic means,
06:56through writing,
06:58if an attempt is made to break the country,
07:01then that thing will come under national sedition in a way.
07:06Earlier we used to understand,
07:08in a way that the state was said against a particular power or against someone,
07:13and the national state was said against its influence.
07:18Now when this has been collected,
07:20then here this apprehension is also being shown
07:22that the things we saw earlier about sedition,
07:25the danger of that may increase more on the writers,
07:28on the journalists or on other people.
07:31You are a journalist and my relationship with journalism is very old.
07:37I started my career as a journalist.
07:40So writing has always been restricted.
07:44We are not able to write what we want to write.
07:47This is a very bitter truth.
07:49No matter what we say,
07:51it is not freedom to write even today.
07:54Somewhere it is a bond.
07:56But yes, it is still there.
08:00Earlier it was limited to print media.
08:03It did not come out much.
08:05It comes out through all social media platforms.
08:09People say what is in their heart through those social media platforms.
08:13Earlier it used to be a struggle.
08:15And there are many such incidents.
08:18You are familiar with all those incidents.
08:21So writing against the state and against the state power,
08:25and writing against the nation,
08:27at least the courts and the people involved in the judicial process,
08:34understand the difference between the two.
08:36A police officer may be helpless
08:39because of a politician sitting above him.
08:45But the courts see the difference between the state and the state and the nation.
08:51But here we are talking about politics.
08:55If you implicate someone in this matter,
09:02then the court will continue to investigate for 2-5 years.
09:06Then the court will decide whether the person was involved or not.
09:11Whether he was a traitor or a traitor to the state.
09:13Because now he will become a traitor to the state.
09:17You are absolutely right.
09:19And today the Home Minister said that we want to limit the timeline.
09:24We want to give speedy justice.
09:26But if you go to file an FIR today or even after today,
09:32then till there is no big source, the FIR will not be filed.
09:36Today's situation is the same.
09:38And if we talk about today's 1st of July,
09:42then how many cases were dismissed today?
09:46If they want to see, then we will only express sadness on the number.
09:51To say something, to follow it, and to practically implement it in a pragmatic way is a very different thing.
10:00For example, the Negotiable Instrument Act was made because it is a commercial law.
10:05Everything should be decorated within 6 months.
10:08The first date is 8-9 months.
10:12In a few years, the evidence is not complete.
10:15So even then it was a law.
10:17And then the Indian Constitution also said that speedy justice is the truthful justice.
10:25But that does not happen.
10:27Reality is something else.
10:29Now let's talk about bringing audio-video platforms.
10:36You said that the court will run through electronic means.
10:39The classification of the courts was terminated.
10:42Everything will be called Judicial Magistrate.
10:45Very good.
10:46Apart from 9 metropolitan towns,
10:49you tell me, in which city is audio-visual happening today?
10:53My district is 70 km away from here.
10:56I gave an application to the district judge,
10:58sir, listen to my request from a VC.
11:02He said, sir, it is there, but it does not work.
11:06I would like to stop you here.
11:10You said that the FIR should be registered at home.
11:15We talked about police reform.
11:17Commissions were made.
11:18Police reform has not been done in that way.
11:20Is it feasible? Is it practical?
11:22Although it is a good thing if this initiative has been given.
11:25But practically, as you said, how possible is it?
11:27Will I register the FIR at home?
11:30Will action be taken on it?
11:32And will the proceedings go on?
11:35It is a matter of words.
11:41So what is it for ordinary people?
11:43I wanted to say that if we talk about crime against women,
11:48how can it get more strength and teeth?
11:51Look, sir, I said this very lightly that it is a matter of words.
11:58And the fact is that there are a lot of practical problems in front of the magistracy,
12:02in front of the courts, even in front of the government.
12:04A lot of infrastructure is needed.
12:06Today, our country has developed.
12:09Today, we have not been able to develop properly in comparison to the courts.
12:14But if we look at our intent.
12:19See, two things are very important to see here.
12:23The government's intent was definitely seen in these laws.
12:27That they have passed the law.
12:29They wrote this thing.
12:31See, very small things are said about the law.
12:36Law is not static.
12:38It develops by itself.
12:40So in the passage of time, what the courts have said continuously,
12:44whether it is about digital evidence,
12:46whether it is about marital rape,
12:48whether it is about the protection of women,
12:51so all those things are included in today's modern laws.
12:55They have been brought in.
12:57After bringing them in,
12:59there will definitely be teething troubles.
13:01It will definitely take a few years.
13:02But somewhere or the other,
13:04the courts will be offended by this.
13:06Because there is a very important rule in the examination of law,
13:14which is called the Golden Rule of Interpretation.
13:16That according to the Golden Rule of Interpretation,
13:20what is written in the statute cannot go beyond that.
13:23So if it comes in the statute there,
13:27that from 1st July,
13:29whoever commits a crime against a woman,
13:35the punishment for that crime will be such,
13:37its trial will be such.
13:39So the time limit may not be followed.
13:42But the law will remain the same.
13:45And the trial will be according to that law.
13:47And the punishment will be the same.
13:50For example, it has been said that if a woman is below the age of 15,
13:58then a marital rape will not be committed.
14:02The Supreme Court did this at the age of 18.
14:07And this government,
14:09which was in the IPC earlier,
14:11the age limit was 15 years.
14:13Now that limit has been reduced to 18 years by the law.
14:17The age of marriage is also 18 years.
14:20So that's the thing.
14:22But if we look at the practical aspect,
14:24there are still so many child marriages.
14:28Marital rape has not happened yet.
14:30Yes, it will be a long story.
14:33There is a factor where pragmatism will come in a different place.
14:38What is written in the books will come in a different place.
14:41But if there is intention,
14:43we will reach there someday.
14:46I can only hope for that.
14:50Mr. Ramakant, what are the things you go to those legal avenues
14:57where neither all journalists nor the public are allowed
15:02and nor do they have access?
15:04What changes?
15:05If you tell us as a layman,
15:07will the judges also have to read some new rules?
15:10Will some rule book change?
15:12Have you been briefed in any way?
15:14Mr. Pankaj, let me add one more thing to this.
15:17Because it is being implemented from today,
15:19there will be cases according to the new law.
15:21Millions of cases will still be pending in the country before this.
15:24It will be trialed under the same old law.
15:27So these retrospectives will not be applicable.
15:30If it is not applicable in the time frame of the previous crimes,
15:37then they will be dragged into the court.
15:40The cases will continue.
15:42For the lawyer community,
15:44for the judges also,
15:45there will be a trial in the old law.
15:47According to the new law,
15:49there will be a trial of the same crime.
15:51So practically,
15:52how easy or difficult is it for you?
15:54First, let me answer Mr. Pankaj's question.
15:57The limit of journalists is very limited.
16:03When I was a child, I was taught,
16:05wherever you don't reach, you will never reach.
16:07Yes, yes, yes.
16:10So your limits are with Ravi.
16:16Wherever Ravi is, there is a limit.
16:18Now we will have to see how many journalists are less.
16:21Nowadays, few journalists are not able to walk much.
16:26But we are still alive on their basis.
16:29Yes, yes.
16:31Now let's talk about the practical difficulties that will come.
16:36The old law will work,
16:38the new law will also work.
16:40Their list should be different.
16:42The list of this law should be different.
16:44You have to read this too.
16:46Okay, we are those students of the law.
16:48Mr. Pankaj, even after so many years,
16:51even today when I go to file a case,
16:53I try to read that particular law for the first time in the morning.
16:58What is written in it?
17:00So every time I have to read something with a new definition.
17:03So now we will read two laws.
17:05Now we need to study this profession.
17:11It is necessary and necessary.
17:13So we will study and do it.
17:15We are students anyway.
17:17And a student never gets tired or stops.
17:19He just keeps on studying.
17:21He will study and study.
17:23So there will be problems.
17:25According to the law, the cases will also increase.
17:28But a very interesting thing about this profession is this.
17:34If I talk about the judges of India,
17:37most of the judges study.
17:39And if they come after studying,
17:41and if they want to work, then the work will be done.
17:46And if the work is done,
17:48then we will move forward without delay.
17:52This has to happen.
17:54Because time has moved forward.
17:57Today, no matter what we say,
17:59everyone used to talk.
18:01There used to be a ringtone, dial tone phone.
18:03Today, there is no person without a mobile.
18:05Today, no matter where you go on the road,
18:08a person is taking a mobile phone.
18:10So how will he be able to escape the analysis of the mobile phone?
18:14The lawyer could not escape.
18:16The lawyer cannot deviate himself.
18:18The judges will also have to read the evidence of the case.
18:20They will have to read their admissibility.
18:22So the whole process will continue.
18:25So it will take a lot of time.
18:28But we will study.
18:30We will learn something new.
18:32There is a lot to learn.
18:34We learn every day.
18:35We will learn today and tomorrow as well.
18:37Very good, Ramakant.
18:39One more thing, Ramakant.
18:41With regard to the apprehension,
18:44I will tell you in a better way.
18:46The changes that have taken place,
18:49the police have more power.
18:51Maybe the police are getting more power.
18:54The misuse of which can be on a large scale.
18:57The point is,
18:59where is the government of which political party?
19:03Because the police do not have that kind of freedom.
19:06The police process has not improved.
19:08So how do they use it?
19:10For that time.
19:11So it is also being said about the police
19:13that they have more power and misuse it.
19:17What do you think is the change?
19:20You have asked a very beautiful question.
19:22And it will affect all political parties.
19:26In Prakash Singh,
19:28the Supreme Court said that
19:30this code of conduct should be there for the police.
19:33They should be given freedom.
19:35Today Congress is also moving the adjournment motion.
19:38And BJP used to make this noise till yesterday.
19:41You all want police freedom.
19:44You don't have to call the agencies parrot.
19:47You don't have to say this is a caged parrot.
19:50You have to accuse everyone.
19:52So give them freedom.
19:55Today everyone has a problem.
19:57That police or agencies do wrong.
20:01Whoever is in favor or against.
20:03Yesterday they were against.
20:05Today they are in favor.
20:06So they say something else.
20:07So everyone has misused it.
20:10So Prakash Singh, the Supreme Court said
20:12that you give independence,
20:14give freedom to investigate.
20:15No one gave that.
20:16So the rights given to the police,
20:20this is actually alarming.
20:25Because even today we are sitting in Delhi.
20:29Please tell us what is the right
20:31that you are alarming.
20:33Yes, I am coming.
20:35See, custodial torture,
20:38means custodial limitation,
20:41that they are given the right to be in custody
20:44for 30 days instead of 15 days.
20:47In police custody,
20:49tell one of them to stay for 5 days.
20:52For one day, you do opposition.
20:55You gave them 30 days.
20:57In those 30 days,
20:59what will happen to him and his family?
21:04So if we see the cases of custodial torture,
21:09if we only say that the government figures are correct,
21:15then also we get to see
21:17how many fake encounters have happened today,
21:22how the police torture,
21:24how much they beat,
21:26even the medical is not proper.
21:28When you give the police so much right
21:31that they can keep them in custody for so many days,
21:33in charge sheet,
21:35in some offenses,
21:37they will not file charge sheet for 6 months,
21:39till then you will keep them in jail.
21:41If we have given so much right to the police,
21:46then this is a dangerous trap
21:51that a common citizen will be trapped here,
21:54can be tortured,
21:56and in this context,
21:59one thing is for sure that
22:01the courts will have to be more alert.
22:04Because if the courts do not properly examine the powers of the police
22:10and casually give remands,
22:12then there will be a very bad outcome.
22:18A small question comes out of this,
22:21we will not take much time, Mr. Ramakrishnan.
22:23When we see such loopholes in many things,
22:28this may be a political question from my side,
22:32in such a time,
22:34such important laws,
22:35it is not that we have to change it next year,
22:37then after 2 years we have to change it.
22:39Laws are being made for a long time,
22:41laws are being made for whole generations,
22:43there will be amendments from time to time,
22:45okay.
22:46These laws are passed without discussion,
22:48within the parliament,
22:50or when it was passed by the committees,
22:52there too,
22:54some issues were raised on it,
22:57but despite that,
22:58if there are loopholes in this way,
23:00then such discussions may be needed,
23:03we could have waited for a few more days,
23:04we could have discussed more.
23:06Undoubtedly.
23:08Because when you are giving power to someone,
23:11then without putting a bond on his power,
23:15and why is there a parliament?
23:17To make laws.
23:18So to make laws,
23:20if we do not examine the various aspects,
23:23if we do not test,
23:25then we are opening the way to misuse that law.
23:31And the most popular law is
23:33Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
23:35Yes.
23:37It was born in 1995.
23:40And it was implemented in 2002.
23:43Yes.
23:44And even in 2002, the law was still very good.
23:47By adding political color to this law,
23:51all the efforts that were made,
23:53and by the time it came to 2013,
23:56so many, I mean,
23:58the government had a conference,
23:59because it is a political thing,
24:00so I will include politics in it too,
24:04that by the time it came to 2013,
24:06so many changes were made.
24:08And since 2015,
24:10today the situation is that
24:12it has become difficult to get involved in that law.
24:14Yes.
24:15So when you are curtailing someone's process,
24:18someone's freedom,
24:20and doing it without discussion,
24:22then it is very sad.
24:24I don't think it should be done this way.
24:27The POTA law was also a kind of thing.
24:32Like TADA, POTA.
24:33Prevention of Terrorism Act.
24:35And see, Mr. Rawat Khan,
24:37we will end the conversation here.
24:39But the debate you talked about today,
24:42just a while ago,
24:43Rahul Gandhi was speaking in the Lok Sabha,
24:45and it is being said in a lot of historical matters,
24:49and perhaps for the first time,
24:50Rahul Rahul was also chanted in the entire Lok Sabha.
24:54There too, when Rahul Gandhi raised the question on Agni Veer,
24:57and said that,
24:58in a way, Agni Veer is a use-and-throw soldier.
25:02He is not given any kind of facility.
25:04Then the Defence Minister and the Home Minister said,
25:07see, Mr. Rahul,
25:08after a lot of discussion,
25:10after discussion by experts,
25:12then it has been formulated.
25:14So, same, whether it can be said about these new rules or not.
25:17I will say one more interesting thing about Agni Veer.
25:21In the speech of Rajput Mohaja,
25:24for about 30 minutes,
25:25he speaks on the government policies,
25:27especially on defence.
25:29He did not mention Agni Veer even once,
25:32in his speech.
25:34So, if there is such a problem,
25:36then first, the discussion should be done in detail.
25:38Yes.
25:39But, anyway, again,
25:40that, that,
25:41something more.
25:42Yes, please, please.
25:44See, the thing is that,
25:46Rahul Gandhi takes an oath of the Constitution,
25:49and what are the provisions of the Constitution?
25:52If you ask him,
25:53four provisions,
25:55then the tongue will stand up.
25:57Very, very bitter,
25:59and I do not belong to Congress,
26:01nor do I belong to BJP.
26:03It is symbolic, you know.
26:05Absolutely right.
26:07See, when we talk about something symbolic,
26:10then,
26:11there should be some authenticity in it.
26:13Yes.
26:14See, when we say,
26:16law is the same from Kashmir to Kanyakumari.
26:22So, if,
26:24when we say,
26:26if we point it out,
26:28and say something,
26:30then it becomes more effective.
26:32Yes.
26:33By saying it generally,
26:34it only becomes political.
26:36Like, we talked about Agnibir,
26:37now, Rahulji raised a question on Rafel,
26:40called the government a thief,
26:42and then apologized in the Supreme Court.
26:44If you say, then stay.
26:46If you say that you did it wrong,
26:48and he did it wrong,
26:50then keep arguments on it.
26:52Just, till there,
26:54do not oppose it.
26:56Do not stand against it.
26:58Bring it into a constructive debate.
27:00You are a responsible leader,
27:02and you show the future of the country to people.
27:05So, the future of the country should be such that,
27:08I am, in the sense of truth,
27:10that person,
27:12who can be the keyword of this country.
27:14I can be its anchor.
27:16Here, these are the shortcomings.
27:18These can be removed.
27:20It is a constructive argument.
27:22Today, you are in power.
27:24You are in a position to speak your mind.
27:26Today, you are an opposition leader.
27:28So, speak your mind strongly,
27:30and speak logically.
27:32That will be better.
27:34Today, I would like, Ramakant ji,
27:36if you have not seen it,
27:38it is a two-hour speech by Rahul Gandhi,
27:40and there are a lot of sharp notes in it.
27:42Do watch it. I am sure.
27:44I will definitely watch it. Thank you.
27:46Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Amit Shah
27:48got up in the middle of their speech.
27:50Let's hope that this is a good sign
27:52of a vibrant democracy.
27:54And there will be fewer speeches.
27:56And there will be better discussions.
27:58As soon as this law is passed,
28:00the next law should not be passed.
28:02There should be a full discussion
28:04so that the implementation
28:06can be better.
28:08Absolutely. Ramakant Gaul,
28:10their advocate from the Supreme Court.
28:12Thank you so much, Ramakant ji,
28:14for speaking to One India.
28:16And with your input, our viewers,
28:18they will end up being richer
28:20after watching this broadcast.
28:22Thank you so much.

Recommended