Three laws relating to criminal justice administration have been brought into force from 1st July 2024. They have been the subject of discussion for quite some time; much has been written and spoken about them. I refer to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA). They have replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act respectively.
The impact of these laws cannot be discussed in a short article. Therefore, I propose to address only a few aspects of these laws, some of which are strange, some good and some require a drastic change.
Strange
The stated intention of these laws was to get rid of the colonial mindset, but almost 90% of the BNS is a cut-and-paste job. The basic structure of the IPC could have been retained and necessary amendments made. There was no need to re-enact what continues to be a mostly colonial legislation. The BNS is nothing but old wine in a new bottle.
One of the more misused sections in the IPC was that of sedition. Youngsters were arrested for innocent tweets. Sometime back, the impression given to the Supreme Court and indeed to the country was that this colonial provision would be abrogated. But we now find that the opposite has happened. The new provision (section 152 BNS) is sedition plus. There is now greater scope for abuse of the provision, with more stringent punishment. A few days ago, some people were arrested for waving the Palestine flag. Now, they can be charged with undefined excitement to subversive activity under section 152 BNS.
Similarly, an abused section 153A of the IPC (promoting enmity between different groups) has been re-enacted and expanded as section 196 BNS. Enormous discretion continues to be given to the police to book a person for a non-bailable offence under this section. But, as in the past, it is unlikely to be used against hate-mongers.
Good
Some good provisions in the BNSS include videography in cases of search (section 185) but on a mobile phone! Hopefully, this will eliminate occasional high-handedness of the officials. But it seems there is no standard operating procedure for videography.
The law now requires mandatory display of the list of arrested persons in a police station (section 37). Good, but what happens if the arrest is not shown? The police are known to play this game. There are also restrictions on the arrest of persons aged above 60 years (section 35) in offences carrying punishment of less than 3 years. How is the age to be verified? By the way, most such offences are bailable, by and large. So this is really a cosmetic improvement.
The BNSS provides some cosmetic benefits to a victim of crime. For example, section 193 provides that in cases of sexual offences, investigation should be completed within two months. While the provision is good, if the investigation is not completed within two months, the court can be approached for extension of time. Why fix a time limit? There is also a requirement that in a case of sexual offence, the police must inform the victim of the progress in the investigation within 90 days. If information is not given, it doesn’t seem to matter. Will the police actually respect this provision? Strangely, there is no requirement to provide information after 90 days.