GK

Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, speaking at the conference on ‘India’s Progressive Path in the Administration of Criminal Justice System’, lauded the enactment of the new criminal laws — Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam — as a momentous development, marking a pivotal shift in India’s legal landscape concerning criminal justice.

Chandrachud highlighted the transformative nature of these legislative measures, asserting that they bring essential enhancements to safeguard the interests of victims and to streamline the investigation and prosecution of offences. He particularly emphasized the significance of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS), which supersedes the outdated Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. According to Chandrachud, the BNSS adopts a comprehensive approach to addressing crimes in the digital era. It mandates the audio-visual recording of search and seizures and requires the presence of forensic experts at crime scenes for offences punishable with more than seven years of imprisonment. Chandrachud stressed the importance of audio-visual recording in not only aiding prosecution but also in safeguarding the civil liberties of citizens. He noted that judicial oversight during search and seizures would help protect citizens against procedural irregularities.

Moreover, Chandrachud underscored the significance of having forensic experts present at crime scenes, asserting that their presence would enhance the efficiency of investigative teams.

While acknowledging the progress made with these new laws, Chandrachud also acknowledged the challenges that lie ahead in fully realizing their objectives. He emphasized the necessity of formulating detailed rules governing the use of recording devices, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice, and delineating the consequences of failing to conduct such recordings.

Chandrachud, a proponent of virtual hearings, expressed satisfaction with Section 532 of the BNSS, which permits the electronic conduct of trials, inquiries, and proceedings under the code. He also stressed the importance of preserving privacy rights while digitizing court proceedings. In the digital age, he noted, the protection of data and sensitive information has become paramount. While acknowledging the efficiency and convenience that data can offer, Chandrachud cautioned against the risks posed by the misuse or unauthorized access to personal data. He emphasized the need for robust systems to safeguard against data breaches and leaks.

Furthermore, Chandrachud emphasized the imperative of infrastructure development to meet the demands of the new laws. While the BNSS sets ambitious timelines for the completion of criminal trials and the pronouncement of judgments, Chandrachud warned that inadequate court infrastructure and resource constraints within the prosecution could undermine the effective implementation of these guarantees. He emphasized the importance of ensuring that courts and prosecution services have the necessary resources and technological capabilities to conduct speedy trials and uphold the rights of victims and the accused.

The Supreme Court continued its deliberation on a series of petitions advocating for the legal recognition of same-sex marriages. On the second day of proceedings, the court focused on discussions surrounding the evolving legal landscape pertaining to LGBTQ rights and the fundamental right to choose one’s partner. Notable cases highlighting the shift in legal perspectives over time were examined:

In the case of NALSA v Union of India, the Court affirmed the constitutional rights of transgender individuals, granting them the right to determine their gender identity. This decision underscored the importance of legal recognition and protection for transgender persons.

The landmark judgment in KS Puttaswamy v Union of India, where the right to privacy was established as a fundamental right, overturned previous rulings that hindered LGBTQ rights. The verdict emphasized that the rights of the LGBTQ community are genuine and integral to principles of liberty, equality, and dignity.

In Shafin Jahan v Union of India, the Court upheld the right to choose one’s partner as an essential aspect of personal liberty and dignity, irrespective of religious or social norms. This decision reinforced the autonomy of individuals in matters of personal relationships.

Shakti Vahini v Union of India addressed the issue of honor killings and affirmed the right of adults to marry of their own free will. The Court emphasized that personal choices in relationships are protected under constitutional rights and should not be subjected to societal or communal pressures.

The landmark ruling in Navtej Johar v Union of India marked a significant milestone by decriminalizing homosexuality and affirming the equality of LGBTQ individuals. The judgment reiterated that discrimination based on sexual orientation is unconstitutional.

In Deepika Singh vs Central Administrative Tribunal, the Court recognized the diversity of family structures, including queer marriages, and affirmed their entitlement to legal protections and benefits. This decision acknowledged the reality of non-traditional family units and emphasized their equal status under the law.

These cases collectively reflect the evolving jurisprudence towards recognizing and safeguarding the rights of the LGBTQ community, affirming principles of equality, liberty, and dignity for all individuals.