On December 12, 2023, Union Home Minister Amit Shah introduced three new criminal laws, claiming to “decolonise” India’s legal framework. The laws were passed less than 10 days later without much parliamentary debate. On July 1, 2024, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and Indian Evidence Act, respectively.
These changes, aim to modernise the criminal justice system, addressing contemporary challenges and streamlining judicial processes. The new laws introduce several reforms, including the incorporation of technology in legal procedures, mandatory videography of crime scenes, and the provision for electronic FIRs. They also redefine and expand the scope of various offences, such as organised crime, terrorism, and mob lynching, while introducing new categories like community service as a form of punishment. The laws also emphasise victim-centric approaches, ensuring faster trials and enhanced protection for vulnerable groups.
Despite these advancements, the new laws have faced criticism for being anti-poor, expanding police powers, reintroducing sedition which had been sent into abeyance, and raising concerns about civil liberties. Poetically, the first arrest under the new laws was that of a street vendor in the national capital.
The implementation of these laws represents a step toward an attempt at a more efficient and just legal system in India…but is it a step in the right direction?
Jargon
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS): Law replacing the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It introduces new offences such as organized crime, mob lynching, and deceitful promises of marriage and includes severe penalties for crimes against women and children.
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS): Replaces the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and extends police custody from 15 to 90 days. It allows for Zero FIRs, electronic communication for reporting crimes, and mandates forensic evidence collection for serious crimes.
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA): Replaces the Indian Evidence Act and mandates electronic records and digital evidence to be admissible in court. It also allows video recording of statements in sexual assault cases and expands the scope of secondary evidence.
- Zero FIR: Allows individuals to file a First Information Report (FIR) at any police station, regardless of jurisdiction, to eliminate delays in initiating legal proceedings.
- Community Service: Introduced as an alternative punishment for minor offences to reduce prison overcrowding and rehabilitate offenders.
Viewpoints 💭
- Raises concerns about the potential misuse of expanded police powers under the new laws, threatening civil liberties and personal freedoms.
- Critics argue the laws were passed without adequate discussion, sidelining democratic processes and ignoring the opposition’s concerns.
- The introduction of provisions like extended police custody could lead to human rights violations and undermine the principles of justice.
- Opposes the naming of laws in Hindi and Sanskrit as it could alienate non-Hindi speakers and goes against the linguistic diversity of India.
- Demands more inclusive consultation and revisions to the laws to prevent over-criminalization and ensure they do not disproportionately target marginalized communities.
- The left is concerned about the potential for abuse of power and erosion of civil liberties, given the expanded police powers and vague definitions of crimes.
- The right views these laws as a necessary overhaul of outdated legal frameworks, emphasizing national security, modernization, and cultural alignment with Indian values.
- There is a divide in the perception of the legislative process: the left criticizes the hurried passage and lack of debate, while the right champions the decisive action to replace colonial laws.
- The left worries about the inclusivity and fairness of the laws, particularly in relation to marginalized communities, whereas the right focuses on the laws’ potential to strengthen societal order and justice.
- The debate over language and accessibility of the laws (Hindi and Sanskrit names) also underscores deeper ideological divides regarding India’s cultural identity and linguistic diversity.
- The new laws represent a significant step towards modernizing India’s criminal justice system, aligning it with contemporary challenges and societal values.
- Emphasis on technology and victim-centric approaches is seen as a progressive move to ensure faster trials and justice delivery.
- Supports the replacement of colonial-era laws with Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam as a move towards a more Indianized legal system.
- Advocates for stronger measures against organized crime, terrorism, and crimes against women and children, with stricter penalties to deter criminal activities.
Prominent Voices 📣
- All India Trinamool Congress: Described the new criminal laws as draconian and criticized their passage in Parliament. [1]
- Asaduddin Owaisi (AIMIM Leader): Raised concerns about the new laws criminalizing marginalized communities and extending police custody. [2] [3]
- Ashwini Kumar (Former Union Law Minister and Congress leader): Criticized the rushed implementation and lack of stakeholder consultation for the new laws. [4] [5]
- Indian National Congress: Called for more debate and public consultation before implementing the new laws. [6] [7]
- Indira Jaising (Senior Advocate): Criticized the laws for potentially leading to a police state. [8]
- Amit Malviya (BJP Leader): Defended the new laws, citing positive remarks and the transition to a modern legal framework. [9]
- Amit Shah (Union Home Minister): Emphasized that the new laws prioritize justice over penal action and reflect Indian values. [10] [11]
- Arjun Ram Meghwal (Union Law Minister): Stated that the new laws reflect Indian values and focus on justice. [8]
- Droupadi Murmu (President of India): Stated that the new laws prioritize justice over punishment and align with the Constitution. [12]
Sources 📚
