What's New

Rewriting the code.

Relevance

• GS Paper- 2 Functions and responsibilities of the Union and the States.

Why in the news?

Recently, three bills in Parliament were introduced by government that seek to replace the British-era Indian Penal Code (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Indian Evidence Act, with the aim of transforming criminal justice system.

These colonial-era laws will be replaced by legislation with an Indian ethos-

• • The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, to replace the IPC;
  • Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for CrPC; and
  • Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023, for the Indian Evidence Act have been referred to a standing committee.

The Centre on August 11 introduced three new Bills in the Lok Sabha that propose a complete overhaul of the country’s criminal justice system. The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 is set to be replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 will be replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 whereas the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, will be replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023.

• Home Minister Amit Shah said- In the Lok Sabha that the new Bill on IPC repeals the offence of sedition under Section 124A of the IPC. However, it has been replaced by another section targeting speech, writing or any form of communication that incites separatist and subversive activities.
• The process to bring about amendments in criminal laws has been in the pipeline for a while. The Parliamentary Standing Committee in its 111th and 128th reports had highlighted the need for reform in criminal laws through the enactment of a comprehensive legislation instead of piecemeal amendments in existing acts.

Changes made in recently introduced bill:

The enactment of the new Sanhita is a crucial step to dispel the colonial shadow as-

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023-

• It proposed replacement for the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which does not contain IPC Section 377 (or an equivalent section), which was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2018.
• Repealing Sedition law: The repeal of the sedition law points to a welcome shift in the balance struck between individual liberty and national security, but also frames that shift’s incompleteness.
• But the proposed Sanhita contains a provision that penalizes “endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India”.
• Without calling it sedition, it expands its definition, including aiding through financial means and “subversive activities”, and encouraging “feelings of separatist activities”.
• Inculcation of past judgments of courts (Anurag Soni v State of Chhattisgarh (2019). for eg. Introduction of the deceitful promise to marry as a criminal offence.
• “Deceitful means” will include the false promise of employment or promotion, inducement or marrying after suppressing one’s identity.

Introduction of reformative form of justice:

• The insertion of community service as an alternate form of punishment could prevent more undertrials languishing in jails.
• New bills also include recognition of murder by a mob on ethnic, caste and communal lines.

Address the technological advancement:

• The Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023, or BSB, which replaces Indian Evidence Act, 1872, proposed provisions will allow witnesses, accused, experts and victims to appear through electronic means.
• It also allows electronic evidence to have the same legal value as documents and seeks to expand the scope of secondary evidence to include copies made from the original by mechanical processes as proof of evidence.

Along with law-based reforms, there is need for institutional reform:

• While the argument for a modern nation to erase the colonial legacy of treating the citizen as a subject is compelling, the blame for misuse of laws cannot be solely placed at the door of the long departed colonial power.
• At their core, due process and personal liberty are inviolable human rights, and the threats to them flow as much from the law books as from congealed structural and institutional realities. These make the criminal justice system more punitive than justice driven.

What was the mandate of the criminal law reforms committee?

• Members of the committee-

Prof. (Dr.) Ranbir Singh, former Vice Chancellor of National Law University (NLU), Delhi to review the three codes of criminal law.

The other members of the committee included — G.S. Bajpai (Registrar, National Law University Delhi), Balraj Chauhan (first Vice-Chancellor, Dharmashastra National Law University, Jabalpur), Mahesh Jethmalani (senior advocate, Supreme Court) and G.P. Thareja (former district and session judge, Delhi).

Mandate:

• It ensures the safety and security of the individual, the community and the nation; and which prioritizes the constitutional values of ‘justice, dignity and the inherent worth of the individual’.

Has the offence of sedition been repealed?

• The new Bill on IPC repeals the offence of sedition under Section 124A of the IPC. However, it has been replaced by another section targeting speech, writing or any form of communication that incites separatist and subversive activities.
• Part VII of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill is titled ‘Of Offences against the State’, under which Section 150 criminalizes ‘acts endangering sovereignty unity and integrity of India.’ It reads-
• ‘Whoever, purposely or knowingly, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or by electronic communication or by use of financial mean, or otherwise, excites or attempts to excite, secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities, or encourages feelings of separatist activities or endangers sovereignty or unity and integrity of India;
• or indulges in or commits any such act shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.’
• The explanation accompanying it is an incomplete sentence, but generally repeats the clarification found in Section 124A that comments expressing disapprobation of the measures or actions of the Government with a view of getting them altered by lawful means would not come under it. Section 150 also seeks to penalize aiding “subversive activities or those encouraging ‘feelings of separatist activities” through financial means.

The main difference between the existing offence of sedition and the proposed section is that there is no reference now to “disaffection against the government”, or bringing it under hatred and contempt. While the punishment under Section 124A is either life imprisonment or three years in jail, Section 150 enhances the alternative punishment to seven years.

Conclusion:

• There is no doubt that India’s criminal justice system is in dire need of reform. A government decision to refer the Bills to a committee and seek the views of stakeholders, for consulting Opposition, and scrutiny of legislation is a welcoming step.

Therefore, the new Bills will hopefully be thoroughly and vigorously debated in Parliament to put the citizen at the center so that criminal law in line with the constitutional vision reaches general public.

Mains Question:

In the light of the above statement, discuss the features of the Bill and challenges pertaining to this.