How India's new criminal laws contain civil freedom

From the introduction of vague crimes to the increase in police powers, the new criminal laws of India, which was advertised as a means of “decolonizing” the criminal justice system, they achieve anything but.

In July 2024, India joined three new criminal laws in a new regime of the criminal judicial administration came into force – the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which replaced the Indian Criminal Code (IPC); The Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which replaced the criminal proceedings (CRPC); And the Bharatiya Sakshya adhiniyam (BSA), which replaced the India Evidence Act.

These changes were made to “reform” and “decolonize” the laws of India. However, the operation and effects of the laws are in contrast To these ideas. The new laws have Hindi names and remove references to the British monarchy, but keep about 80 percent of the text from existing laws. They not only maintain the colonial aspects of the existing criminal laws, but also improve the powers of the police and correct bourgeois freedom.

Contrary to the specified prioritization of Nyaya (Justice) over Dand (Punishment) The new laws have increased new crimes and the crimes in relation to crimes. The BNS Provides 16 new crimes, improves punishments and fines for 116 crimes and introduces at least 23 crimes. The perceived positive changes that were made according to the new laws would have to require appropriate efforts to create the necessary procedural protection and institutional capacity in order to provide what is promised – an effort that is currently missing.

Here are some of the changes that have been made:

1. Introduction of vague new crimes

A crucial way in which the powers of the police were increased according to the new laws is the creation of vague crimes. A mere reading of Section 197 (1) (D) of the BNS shows ambiguously formulated provisions and criminalizes the creation or publication of “false and misleading information endangers sovereignty, unity and integrity or security of India”. At the beginning, the lack of definition for phrases such as “wrong and misleading” and “endangered” confusion about what can be punished according to this provision. It creates the scope of the selective interpretation of provisions and the resulting arbitrary exercise of police powers.

2. Expansion of police custody

The BNSS has provisions that improve police powers. The maximum time permitted for custody for custody (with the legal approval of a judge) was increased to 60 or 90 days as part of the BNS, depending on the type of crime from 15 days as part of the CRPC. Similarly, custody in the CRPC could only be approved in police custody in the first 15 days of the arrest and had to be continuously without being divided into parts. However, the BNSS enables several shorter prison periods in police custody, which can be applied for during the first 15 days of arrest (i.e. at any time in the first 40 or 60 days) during the examination. This creates the risk of exposure to Police Excesses And undermines the right to fair procedures. In comparison also the Illegal activities (prevention), 1967, 1967Enables 30 days of police custody and requires a determination of the fish to take into account reasons for the search for police custody if the defendant is in judicial custody.

Similarly, § 172 of the BNSS stipulates that all persons must comply with the instructions of the police. By non -observance, a person can “detain” or “remove”. Such a preventive detention/removal is permitted in a maximum of 24 hours in minor cases and for an undefined period for non-matching cases, whereby the necessary procedures and the judicial examination required for arrests are bypassed. Since such a detention does not represent “arrest”, it remains unclear whether judicial security measures against arrest And police excesses will be applicable. It is also unclear and uncertain which cases fall into the amit of “small cases”. In addition, the BNSS validated the handcuffs by introducing a legal provision, although existing judicial precedence declared it unconstitutional.

3. Introduction of a further assertion -like provision

A central piece in the “decolonization” gift of the new law was that the provision for sedition, a colonial heir, had been lifted in the BNS. A large scale understood that “sedition” meant an act of hatred, contempt or dissatisfaction with the Indian government as part of the IPC.

The BNS has technically removed the term “turmoil”. However, it has created a similar new crime with an even larger selection of criminalized actions. Section 152 of the BNS criminalizes “actions endangers the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India” and punish them with imprisonment or imprisonment that extends to seven years and a wealth. It punishes “subversive activities” or promotes “feelings of separatist activities”, but does not provide any explanation for these terms. In addition, the legally defined judicial interpretation of turmoil and its legally defined restrictions does not apply to § 152 – although it is similar – because it is a new provision.

4 .. gaps with positive changes

However, the new laws have been celebrated. However, these positive aspects are difficult to translate on site if certain structural obstacles and systemic realities are not overcome when providing the intended provisions.

A. Zeitlinien

When introducing schedules, the BNSS does not take into account the systemic realities and restrictions of previous attempts such as fast-track dishes due to dishes Serious case composition and lack of judges. For example, the BNSS stipulates a time limit of 60 days from the date, on which the case is sent to the meeting court to meet an application to submit charges or to have rejected the case. However, people often do not receive a prompt access to their fall papers and may not have legal representation in this phase, which makes it difficult to follow this procedure. Stormy procedures were also perceived as undermined fair -trial rights. In addition, the law continues to silence whether failures in relation to schedules in the legal proceedings would provide services for the accused. This would have guaranteed better compliance.

B. victim-centered provisions

It is believed that the new law contains sacrificial -centered provisions because they contain rights such as the registration of Zero Firs. However, the provision of Zero -Firs is already in court by court decisions And Executive Orders. Similarly, the prerequisite for complainants to sign an electronically submitted complaints within three days so that the complaint is made in kilometers within the BNSS, the intention to make a quick complaint easier without looking for jurisdiction. While sections 193 (3) and 230 from BNSS mention the right of the victim to obtain the Fir copy and information from the police, it remains limited because it is only available to victims that are represented by a lawyer.

C. Legal deposit

Section 479 The BNSS relaxes the provisions of the statutory deposit for the first offender. It makes them entitled to release after they have served a third of the sentence in contrast to the half of their judgment prescribed as part of the CRPC. According to half of their half, however, the perpetrators cannot be used first, provided they are not accused of crimes that are punished with life sentence and do not concern criminal investigations or investigations. The corresponding provision according to § 436a of the CRPC has not imposed such restrictions. While the determination appears advantageous at first glance, it can exacerbate the increasing sub -stone population.

D. Community service

Finally, the introduction of the “non -profit service” as a “reformative” sentence would be ineffective if the proper guidelines for its implementation and restriction to a few crimes are not introduced. It is perceived that “non -profit” sentences are granted for non -serious crimes. Such a perception could lead to community service becoming an instrument in order to influence the admission of guilt of accused as bargains to secure freedom. This will have a disproportionate impact on marginalized backgrounds that may have difficulty fulfilling the deposit and that often fails as the last way out to secure their release. This, in turn, will create a criminal record and expose you to a higher risk of profil creation and resources.

e. Use of technology

The mandate for the use of technology in the study is a welcome step because it marks the shift from a compulsion to a scientific mechanism. However, it must be seen whether such goals can be achieved faster justice with the existing infrastructure. For example, the inclusion of forensic experts for the investigation and use of audio video technology during the examination will not only cause challenges in execution, but also tighten the existing burden on infrastructure and resources. In the case of such restrictions, the question arises: “How can manipulating evidence be presented in court and will judges be able to make reasonable decisions for the acceptance or rejection of his authenticity?”

The new laws, which are politics from the colonial-time disclosure, people who reveal people out of marginalized backgrounds to a higher risk of routine stress under several crimes. Effective reforms, the more comprehensive framework of the “criminal justice” and the new presentation of institutions to the police, courts, public prosecutors, defense services and prison-fair and just judiciary for victims and accused to investigate and determine the facilities, drives the more comprehensive reforms.. Changes to the law Without this new configuration, very few reforms will provide that we need.

This article was originally published To India Development Review.

End of the article