It is indeed doubtful whether the Indian Parliament has ever passed any laws more important than the ones intended to replace the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and the Indian Evidence Act. They will have a bearing on every citizen in one way or another. Yet, there was hardly any debate worth the name in the Lok Sabha when the three Bills were moved and passed. The Bills will have a smooth passage in the Upper House too. It is not that the Opposition did not have anything to say on those Bills. In fact, political parties like the Congress, the Trinamool Congress, and the DMK had a lot to say about them. That 142 of the Opposition MPs are under suspension till the session ends has dampened their enthusiasm.
Home Minister Amit Shah has told the House that he has read every word in the new Bills, and there was no need for any worries on that count. He has blamed the existing laws for their antiquity and colonial legacy. What he should have remembered is that the IPC, drafted in 1834 and brought into force in 1860, had undergone several changes during the interregnum. It was a measure of the drafting skill that till today it has remained the least amended law in the country. Much the same can be said about the two other laws. This was all the more reason that the proposed system of law should have been vetted by legal experts, practitioners of the law, and other stakeholders. Even if the consultations took one or two more years, it was worth it, as what is sought is a complete overhaul of the legal system.
What happened in the case of the three agricultural Bills passed with alacrity is too recent to recapitulate here. Had more attention been paid to responding to public opinion, the government would not have been forced to recant. If anyone believes that the suspension of the Opposition MPs is to facilitate a smooth passage of the Bills, he cannot be blamed. A new legal system is what the government wants to bequeath to the nation, and it is in everyone’s interest that it should be fool-proof. All that the Opposition demanded was a statement by the Home Minister in the House on how and why two outsiders created anarchy in the Parliament building. Obstinacy by those in authority does not redound to their credit.