This Written by Jasmanpreet Kaur, a fourth-year B.A. LL.B. student at CGC University, Mohali, and Dev Kumar Yadav, Assistant Professor of Law, ICFAI University.
INTRODUCTION
In 2023, the Indian Parliament passed three new criminal laws: the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) to replace the colonial-era laws. These laws took effect on July 1, 2024.
Since then, people across the country have debated whether these changes truly improve the system for citizens or simply update the names of old colonial laws. Some important updates suggest real reform, but many unchanged sections make it seem like just a rebranding.
“This blog examines whether India’s new criminal laws represent genuine reform or merely a symbolic rebranding of colonial codes.”
NEED FOR NEW CRIMINAL LAWS
The loopholes in the old criminal laws raised the need for the new and improved criminal laws. Earlier, during the British period, state control was placed over the citizens’ rights. Citizens were given very little importance, and the workings of the government were non-transparent and non- participatory.
The colonial criminal laws contained complex procedures consisting of multiple stages of investigation and trial, which hindered the process of justice. Moreover, the language of the old codes was much legalistic and ambiguous.
The system was slow, leading to case backlogs, requiring streamlined processes and faster trials. Lack of provisions for digital evidence and forensic science hindered modern investigations, requiring digital integration.
The changes brought under the new laws are not just about changing names, but they are about ditching the legal system built for the British Raj and replacing it with the one built for the Modern India. The goal is to make the law field more like a service for the people, using technology to speed the process of protecting victims’ rights and ensuring that the justice system actually reflects the values of a modern democracy.
THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE REDRAWN: KEY REFORMS
- FOCUS ON VICTIM’S RIGHTS: The new update in the latest criminal laws contains the mandate of providing all the information about the ongoing investigation to the victim or their legal representatives. There is a provision for mandatory legal representation for the victims in certain crimes.
- JUSTICE AT PACE: The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (CrPC), has laid down the timelines for investigation and trials. It has fixed a 90-day timeline for completing the investigation of the case, which is subject to exceptional cases with reasonable grounds for delay. The trial has to be completed within 2 years. This time period has been fixed to speed up the process of justice.
- THE PAPERLESS PATH TO JUSTICE: The new criminal laws are made to incorporate technological advancements to increase legal efficiency. From the electronic filing of F.I.R.s to the instant issue of summons, warrants, and court orders, the legal process is going paperless. This ensures a more seamless flow of justice. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BNS), which has replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), allows the admission of forensic evidence and video recordings.
- SHIELDING THE VULNERABLE: Some new offences have been added to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which are included specifically to protect women. Under BNS, Stalking has been specifically criminalised with stricter oversight. Acid attacks are now recognised with higher priority. The definition of Sexual harassment has been broadened. It also provides for the protection of survivors of serious crimes.
- CONFRONTING COLLECTIVE VIOLENCE: For the first time, the law explicitly recognises and penalises Mob Lynching under Section 103(2) of the BNS. By prescribing the death penalty or life imprisonment for murder committed by a group of five or more persons on grounds of race, caste, or community, the law sends a clear deterrent against organised hate crimes.
- A SHIFT TOWARDS RESTORATIVE JUSTICE: The BNS introduces Community Service as a punishment for petty crimes. This reformative tool allows offenders to repay their debt to society through constructive work, prioritising rehabilitation over mere retribution.
- TRIAL IN ABSENTIA & ZERO FIR: To ensure that justice is not delayed, the law now allows for Trial in Absentia for those offenders who evade the court. This is complemented by the statutory recognition of Zero FIR, which allows victims to register a complaint at any police station regardless of jurisdiction. The complaint is then transferred to the competent police station.
OLD LAWS VS NEW LAWS IPC V/S BNS
The Indian Penal Code was the official legal code of India, which dealt with all criminal offences. It was established during the British colonial era in 1860. The main objective of IPC was to establish a framework that upholds justice, maintains public order and protects individual rights in society. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is now the official criminal code in India. It came into effect on July 1, 2024. The primary goal of this legislation is to modernise the criminal justice system to protect every person from the new-age crimes, such as cyberbullying, identity theft, etc., and it is relatively easier to understand.
Several changes were inserted in the BNS. Firstly, the number of sections has been reduced. The BNS is formatted in a very structured manner, whereas IPC was created in an unstructured manner. It contains specific sections and chapters for similar types of crimes. For example, all the crimes against women are consolidated under one chapter.
Secondly, BNS introduced Community service as a punishment for petty crimes. In cases where reformation and rehabilitation of the offender are possible, rather than imposing imprisonment as a punishment, community service is awarded, which includes cleaning streets, performing seva at any temple or gurudwara, or vipasana, which involves abstaining from food and phone for 10 days. Some of the offences involving community service are theft in cases where the value of the stolen property is less than 5000 rupees, defamation and misconduct by a drunken person in public. IPC used to provide only 4 punishments, namely the death penalty, imprisonment, forfeiture of property and fine.
Thirdly, BNS has inserted provisions related to cybercrime, which is very common in today’s digital era. Cybercrimes were not mentioned in the IPC and were dealt with under the Information Technology Act,2000. But under BNS, harsher punishments for cyber offences are laid down to provide justice to the victims.
Fourthly, in BNS, the offence of Sedition has been replaced with a new provision that punishes the activity that spreads hatred against India. Whereas under the IPC, the definition of sedition was very vague and had a broad interpretation, which was capable of being misused by people. The punishment for such an offence, which spreads hatred against the nation, has also been increased.
Lastly, some new crimes have been added in BNS, such as mob lynching, petty organised crime and terrorist acts. Separate punishments have been laid down under different sections for acts
committed by a group of 5 or more persons constituting a mob. Petty organised crimes are those which are committed by a group or gang of persons, including theft, snatching, cheating and unauthorised selling of tickets. Terrorist acts are those that threaten the unity, integrity, sovereignty and security of India and create a feeling of terror in the minds of the people using bombs, dynamites, lethal weapons, etc.
CRPC VS BNSS
To cope with the technological advancements and to enhance criminal proceedings, the BNSS was implemented to replace the British-era CRPC. The BNSS is technology-driven, victim-centric, and decolonised.
Major changes have been brought to the criminal justice system. One of the most significant changes is the introduction of Electronic FIR. Every citizen has the power to file an e-FIR for any crime. But the informant is required to sign the record within 3 days for it to be officially registered. The CRPC didn’t have any such provisions.
The second one is that the search and seizure process, including the preparation of the list of the seized items, is required to be recorded in any electronic device. Under the BNSS, the examination of witnesses, accused can be conducted through video conferencing.
The third most visible change brought under the BNSS is the introduction of the Zero FIR, i.e., the FIR can be filed at any police station regardless of the jurisdiction. While this was permitted earlier through the judicial precedents, the CRPC didn’t have any provision regarding this. In addition to this, the police officers are required to give all the information about the progress of the investigation to the victim within 90 days.
While CRPC didn’t lay any strict timelines for various procedures, the BNSS imposes “legal deadlines” to solve the issue of “justice delayed”. Under BNSS, the court is required to frame the charges within 60 days from the first hearing on charges. Besides this, the BNSS provides that the judgments must be given within 30 days of the completion of arguments.
Another radical change brought under BNSS is the provision for Trial in Absentia. If the offender fails to appear before the court, the trial can proceed, and a judgment can be delivered in their absence. Their presence is not mandatory.
Furthermore, the BNSS has removed the terms “ Metropolitan Areas” and “Metropolitan Magistrates”, which were given under the CRPC. Now, there are only Judicial Magistrates. Forensic investigation has been made compulsory for all crimes punishable with imprisonment od 7 years or more.
IEA VS BSA
The Indian Evidence Act governed the principles of admission of evidence in the colonial era till the implementation of the new evidence law- The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. BSA has modernised India’s evidence law by integrating technology and streamlining procedures. While retaining almost 90% of the original principles, the definitions have been broadened, and the outdated terms have been removed, making it more relevant and efficient in the modern digital age.
In the Indian Evidence Act, electronic records were generally placed under secondary evidence, requiring a certificate for admissibility. But under the BSA, electronic records are classified as primary evidence under Section 57. However, they must be produced from proper custody. The definition of a document also includes information stored and transmitted digitally and electronically, for example, WhatsApp messages and emails.
As per the Adhiniyam, oral evidence can also be given electronically, i.e., the witnesses, victims and the accused can testify through video conferencing. Also, the Adhiniyam has laid down a standard format for the certificate required for the admissibility of electronic records.
In addition to these, the scope of Expert Opinion has been widened. In cases involving disputes regarding admissbility of electronic or digital signatures, the expert opinion of the certifying authority can be taken.
CRACKS IN THE FOUNDATION: A CRITICAL LOOK
The new laws resemble “An old wine in a new bottle” because many provisions of the latest laws are retained as they were. While the government describes it as a move towards “decolonisation” and “justice-centric” law, legal experts and critics argue that many changes are superficial and the essence of the old laws remains largely intact. Major criticisms include:
- AMBIGUITIES AND VAGUENESS: The use of vague terminology like “Acts against the nation” leads to misuse and arbitrary arrests. The surveillance powers under the BNSS are considered excessive by some civil liberty groups. The provision of extended police custody for 60 or 90 days can lead to increased risk of custodial torture.
- REPLICATION OF COLONIAL STATUTES: The new criminal laws have just undergone cosmetic changes. The names have changed, but the spirit of the law remains the same. Many clauses are word-for-word replications of the colonial statutes. Approximately 80% to 90% of the sections in the BNS are identical to the IPC. For example, the definitions of theft, culpable homicide, and murder are kept exactly the same, but the section numbers are changed. This also leads to a claim that it is just a nationalist rebranding instead of being a realistic reform.
- INFRASTRUCTURE & IMPLEMENTATION GAPS: Mandatory digital recording (videography) faces problems due to inadequate digital infrastructure. The officials who
are authorised to carry out these processes lack the required training. Also, there are inconsistencies in its application.
- RETENTION OF MARITAL RAPE PROVISION: The provision that protects married men from being charged for the offence of rape on their wife who is above 18 years of age is still a part of the BNS. Instead of decriminalising marital rape, the new laws should have made the rape on wife a serious crime as well, because even a married woman has the right to say no to sexual intercourse with her husband.
FINAL TAKEAWAY
While the statutory introduction of community service and victim-centric timelines is a progressive leap, these provisions alone do not guarantee a fairer society. The true “reform” is not found in the 358 sections of the BNS, but in the day-to-day conduct of the police officer at the station and the magistrate in the courtroom. To ensure these laws deliver on their promise of “Nyaya” (Justice) over “Danda” (Punishment), the following pillars are essential: Systematic retraining of officials, technological safeguards, strict enforcement and judicial vigilance.
Ultimately, the transition is a marathon, not a sprint. A law is only as strong as the hands that wield it. The success of the new criminal laws will depend less on their wording and more on judicial interpretation, implementation capacity, and constitutional restraint.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.
