‘New laws drafted by part-timers… When has a major law been passed without reference to Law Commission?’: P Chidambaram

Concerns about the “Hindi names” of the new criminal laws, the inclusion of anti-terror laws even as the UAPA still exists, “overbroad” definitions and “missed opportunities”. Former Union home minister and senior Congress leader P Chidambaram, who registered his dissent during the parliamentary panel discussions over the new criminal laws, speaks about the problems with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and Bharatiya Saksha Adhiniyam, which were rolled out on July 1.

Excerpts from an interview:

Several states have raised concerns about the title of the laws being in Hindi and the lack of its translation in regional languages.

We have no objection to a Hindi name, but put it in the Hindi version. In the English version, why do you put a Hindi name? This will be required to be translated into all languages… because that is the language of the court. How do we translate this? For example… will we call it ‘India Kutra Chattam’ or ‘Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita’? I don’t know.

In the Hindi version, keep a Hindi name. In the English version, keep an English name. Would you put a Kannada name for a Tamil version?

Your main criticism of the new laws is that they were not necessary.

You should not make changes which are not required. You should only make changes which are necessary. The law must have stability… which means not only the substance of the law, but the manner in which it is presented to the world by Parliament.

For example, the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) was completely rewritten in 1973. Alright, 50 years later you rewrite it, I have no problem. But you have copied it. The IPC, CrPC, everything. You have copied it. And I am willing to demonstrate and to challenge anyone to prove that I am