Union of Indian States, Separate... What did the MPs of opposition parties say?
Three major bills being brought to reform the law can be introduced in the winter session of Parliament.Meanwhile, opposition MPs included in the parliamentary panel of the home Ministry gave a note ofdisagreement regarding the bills, saying that these are copy paste. Also, a strong objection was lodged regardingthe hindi names of the bills. Other opposition parties, including congress, protested against naming the IndianJudicial Code, indian Civil Defense Code and indian Evidence Bill as hindi, saying that it is unconstitutional.Actually, these three bills have been brought to replace the indian Penal Code (IPC), Code of criminal Procedure(CrPC) and indian Evidence Act.Who expressed disagreement?Vice President and rajya sabha Chairman jagdeep dhankhar was included in the panel along with congress MPsAdhir Ranjan Chowdhury, Ravneet Singh, P chidambaram, TMC MPs Derek O'Brien, Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar,Dayanidhi Maran, Digvijay Singh and NR Elango while giving separate dissent notes on the bill. Opposed manyof the bills included.What did the opposition MPs say?
Congress leader Adhir Ranjan Choudhary said that the law is the same as before, but the name was changed.Meanwhile, former chief minister of madhya pradesh Digvijay Singh said that the chairman of the committee wasin a hurry to submit the report. Also, according to news agency PTI, former Union minister P chidambaram saidthat the bill is objectionable and not according to the Constitution. Apart from this, DMK mp Dayanidhi Maransaid that india is a union of states. Different languages are spoken in different states. The body of the bill is inEnglish, but the name is in hindi, which is not under Article 348 of the Constitution. TMC mp O'Brien said thatabout 93 per cent of the existing criminal law has not been changed, with 18 of the 22 chapters being copy-pastedmeaning that these major changes were required for pre-existing laws. The law could have been easily amended.
Congress leader Adhir Ranjan Choudhary said that the law is the same as before, but the name was changed.Meanwhile, former chief minister of madhya pradesh Digvijay Singh said that the chairman of the committee wasin a hurry to submit the report. Also, according to news agency PTI, former Union minister P chidambaram saidthat the bill is objectionable and not according to the Constitution. Apart from this, DMK mp Dayanidhi Maransaid that india is a union of states. Different languages are spoken in different states. The body of the bill is inEnglish, but the name is in hindi, which is not under Article 348 of the Constitution. TMC mp O'Brien said thatabout 93 per cent of the existing criminal law has not been changed, with 18 of the 22 chapters being copy-pastedmeaning that these major changes were required for pre-existing laws. The law could have been easily amended.