New Delhi: Even as a crucial meeting of a Parliamentary Standing Committee of Home Affairs on Friday failed to adopt the central laws replacing IPC and CrPC, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, intends to bring 46 important changes for the amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
BNSS proposes to repeal the CrPC, 1973, which will provide the use of technology and forensic sciences in the investigation of crime and furnishing and lodging of information and service of summons through electronic communication. Specific timelines have been prescribed for time-bound investigation, trial and pronouncement of judgments.
In the BNSS, citizen-centric approaches have been adopted for the supply of a copy of the first information report to the victim and to inform them about the progress of the investigation, including by digital means. “In cases where the punishment is seven years or more, the victim shall be given an opportunity of being heard before withdrawal of the case by the government. The summary trial has been made mandatory for petty and less serious cases. The accused persons may be examined through electronic means, like video conferencing. The magisterial system has also been streamlined,” the draft BNSS copy in possession of ETV Bharat stated.
In the CrPC there are 484 Sections, whereas in the BNSS, which is proposed to replace the CrPC there are 533 Clauses. It proposes changes in 160 Sections from its predecessor, the addition of nine new Sections, and the deletion of nine others.
The Home Secretary, Ajay Kumar Bhalla, recently made a presentation before the Committee, highlighting the significant changes in the proposed Sanhita for the Amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The BNSS also spoke about the modernisation of the court structure by eliminating British-era designations like “Metropolitan Magistrate” and “Metropolitan Area”.
The more important changes in the BNSS also mentioned designated police officers for information on arrested persons. “The BNSS mandates the appointment of designated police officers in each district and police station to provide information about arrested individuals to the general public,” the draft report said.
Also read:New Bills replacing IPC, CrPC, Evidence Act will be passed soon: Union Home Minister Amit Shah
The Sanhita requires medical practitioners to promptly examine arrested persons and forward examination reports to the investigating officer. It also stipulates that information about the arrest of a woman must be provided to her relatives, friends, or designated individuals.
The Sanhita mandates the videography of search and seizure operations, ensuring transparency and adherence to procedures. “The Sanhita introduces safeguards to prevent the registration of cases against armed forces personnel for acts performed in the line of duty without prior consent from the Central or State governments,” the draft report said.
The Committee also notes that while the increased utilisation of technology offers numerous advantages, it also creates opportunities for manipulation and misuse. The collection and storage of electronic evidence raise concerns about data security and the possibility of unauthorised access or breaches.
The Committee, therefore, recommends that the adoption of electronic means for communication and trials should proceed only after the establishment of robust safeguards to ensure the secure usage and authentication of electronically available data. This will help safeguard the integrity of the justice system and ensure that justice is administered fairly and accurately.
During the examination of the Sanhita, the Committee received numerous recommendations from various sources, including law firms, Members of Parliament, advocates, subject matter experts, and other stakeholders. Additionally, the Committee engaged in discussions with a broad spectrum of domain experts, who presented their views to the Committee, providing written feedback and suggestions on different aspects of the Sanhita
During the discussion, some of the domain experts opined that although the body of the text was in English, having a Hindi title did not align with the linguistic diversity of the country, and could create complications in regions where Hindi is not widely spoken. Therefore, it was suggested that the title of the Sanhita should be in English, as it is the common link language among all states.
The Committee notes the wording of Article 348 of the Constitution of India, which says that language to be used in the Supreme Court and the High Courts, as well as for Acts, Bills and other legal documents shall be in the English language.
The Committee finds that as the text of the Sanhita is in English, it does not violate the provisions of Article 348 of the Constitution. The Committee is satisfied with the response of the Ministry and holds that the name given to the proposed legislation is not in violation of Article 348 of the Constitution of India.
