NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Madras High Court to give an early hearing to the petitions challenging validity of three criminal laws, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Joymalya Bagchi, and Vipul M Pancholi issued the direction while expressing its disinclination to entertain a plea by the Federation of Bar Associations, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
The petitioners sought transfer of the plea challenging the constitutionality of three criminal laws pending before the High Court to the apex court.
The court said it would like to take advantage of the opinion of the high court in the matter with respect to the validity of the three criminal laws.
The court was also informed that some other writ petitions are also pending in the high court.
The petitioners' counsel said a notice in the petitions before the high court was issued in September 2024, and thereafter, they were listed in July 2025. The counsel said no date of hearing has been fixed yet. A counsel said that the difficulty was that they couldn’t even pronounce the name of these enactments.
In its order, court said it was informed by senior counsel that notice was issued in the matter in September 2024, thereafter the petition was listed on July 23, 2025, but no date of hearing has been fixed so far.
"Having regard to the importance of the issue and the fact that the writ petitions are awaiting effective hearing, we request the Chief Justice of the High Court to place the matter before a division bench of the High Court. We further request an early/out-of-turn hearing on the matters," the bench said in its order.
The court also noted that the petitioner’s counsel has assured full cooperation and timely assistance to the high court in the matter.
The petitioner sought transfer of the matter from the high court to the apex court, stating that similar petitions are pending before the apex court.
Disclaimer: This content is produced and published by LawStreet Journal Media for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The views expressed are independent of any legal practice of the individuals involved.
