………………………………..

……………………………….

இந்தியா முழுவதும், தற்போது அமலில் இருந்து வரும் –

” Indian Penal Code (IPC)-
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and
Indian Evidence Act-

ஆகிய சட்டங்களுக்கு பதிலாக 3 புதிய சட்டங்களை பலருக்கும்
புரியாத ஹிந்தி மொழியில் மத்திய அரசு கொண்டு வருவது
ஏற்றுக்கொள்ளத்தக்கது அல்ல….

அது அரசியல் சட்ட விதிகளுக்கு முரணானதும் கூட -“
என்று கர்நாடக அரசு எதிர்ப்பு தெரிவித்திருக்கிறது.

புதிய சட்டங்கள் குறித்து, மாநில அரசுகளின் கருத்தை –
மத்திய அரசு கோரி இருந்த நிலையில், கர்நாடக அரசு
தனது மேற்கூறிய கருத்தை தெரிவித்திருக்கிறது.

நியாயமான எதிர்ப்பு….
ஹிந்தி பேசாத அனைத்து மாநிலங்களும் இந்த நிலையை
உடனடியாக ஏற்று, மத்திய அரசுக்கு தங்களது நிலையை
தெரியப்படுத்த வேண்டியது மிக மிக அவசியம்….

ஏன் செல்லாது….?
கர்நாடக அரசு, மத்திய அரசுக்கு விளக்கமாக எழுதியிருக்கும்
கீழ்க்கண்ட கடிதம் நிலைமையை தெளிவாக்குகிறது..

……………………………….

Karnataka govt opposes Centre’s proposal to
replace IPC, Cr.PC and Evidence ACT ..

Link –
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/karnataka-govt-opposes-centres-proposal-to-replace-ipc-crpc-and-evidence-act/articleshow/105670555.cms

………………………

In a letter to Union home minister Amit Shah,
chief minister Siddaramaiah said the central government’s move to name the new laws in Hindi
is a violation of Article 348 of Constitution which mandates names of all laws should be in English.
He also pointed out that the law stipulates that
all proceedings in the Supreme Court and all
high courts should be in English.

His letter is based on a report submitted by
an expert committee which the chief minister had constituted to study the subject.

“As per Article 348 of the Constitution, the revised names of the new bills are not acceptable –

as words ‘Nyaya’, ‘Nagarik’, ‘Suraksha’, ‘Sakshya’
and ‘Sanhita’ are not English words,” said the
report of the committee headed by law and
parliamentary affairs minister HK Patil.

The report has observed that although the new laws
have been titled with the word ‘Bharatiya’,
many sections of the bills use the word ‘Indian’ indicating the lack of sincerity.

For instance, in Section 1 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the word India has been used in 16 places instead of Bharat.
…………

“The Centre has claimed that its move to replace
the old criminal laws with new ones is aimed at
de-colonising these laws,” Patil said.

“While we appreciate the need for decolonisation,
the content in the revised laws merely reflect
tokenism and ad-hocism. It appears they want change
only for the sake of change.”

The Centre introduced the new bill in Parliament
during the winter session in August and Jagdeep
Dhankar, chairman of the Rajya Sabha, referred them
to the house standing committee on home affairs
for examination.

Meanwhile, the Union home ministry sought opinion
from all states on it.

Siddaramaiah constituted an expert committee, which submitted its report in October.

‘90% provisions retained’

Besides the names, the panel has also raised various other objections. The panel found that there is very little difference between existing laws and the
proposed new laws. Some 90% of the provisions
have been retained, it said. “When substantive provisions remain the same, no major purpose is
served by merely renaming the Acts,” said the report.

The report said there is “no visible effort” to
make the laws relevant to the modern age and it has suggested including cybercrimes, hacking, economic offences, spying of nuclear secrets, stashing of currency deposits in tax haven countries, digital sabotage and other crimes. It says this can be done
by amending existing laws and there is no need
to repeal them or replace them with new ones.

The Karnataka government has sought to highlight
the “duality” of the exercise as it found that
section numbers have been changed although the provisions remain the same.

For instance, Section 420 of IPC that prescribes punishment for cheating has been changed to
Section 316.

“We have suggested to retain the numbers and
scheme of sections to avoid unnecessary confusion
and preserve legal continuity and smoother
transition to the new framework,” minister
Patil said.

.
………………………………………………………………………………………………..…….