In a historic legislative move , the Indian government has proposed a complete overhaul of its colonial era criminal laws. The three new bills – Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bhartiya Sakshya bill (BSB) -aim to replace the Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC), the code of criminal procedure ,1973 CrPC and the Indian Evidence Act,1872 respectively. However, these changes have sparked intense debate in legal circles.

While some hail them as a long -overdue modernization, others raise concerns about the scope , language ,and impact of the proposed legislation . This article critically examines the major features , benefits, and the challenges of these bills and what they mean for the future of India's criminal justice system.

Background and rationale:

• The existing Indian criminal laws have their roots in colonial rule. The Indian Penal Code (IPC), for instance, was drafted by Lord Macaulay and came into effect in 1860.
• Over the years, piecemeal amendments have been made, but the core structure remains unchanged.
• The government argues that these laws were designed to rule, not serve; to instill fear, not ensure justice.
• Thus, the reform initiative claims to focus on justice over punishment, citizen-centric procedures, and a victim-focused system.
   

• Key features of new bills:
  • Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) - replacement of Indian Penal Code (IPC)
    1. Terrorism defined: The new bill introduces a formal definition of terrorism, which was missing from IPC.
    2. Mob lynching criminalized: BNS includes mob lynching and hate crimes as distinct offences.
    3. Community service as punishment: Certain minor offences may now be punished with community service, a more restorative approach.
    4. Gender-neutral language: The bill moves toward inclusive terminology, though critics argue it's inconsistent in practice.

Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) - The Replacement for the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC):

• FIR should be registered within 14 days of incident.
• Video recording of search and seizure becomes mandatory.
• Time-bound investigations: investigations for certain crimes must be completed within 90 days.
• Zero FIRs and e-FIRs formalized: enabling people to file FIRs regardless of jurisdiction.
   

Bhartiya Sakshya Bill (BSB) - Replacement for the Indian Evidence Act:

• Admissibility of electronic evidence expanded: includes digital records, emails, messages, and cloud-based documents.
• Presumption in favour of victims in sexual violence cases.
• Electronic communications considered primary evidence.
• Positive impacts and advancements.
• Decolonization and Indianization: the symbolic and practical removal of colonial names and constructs is an important move toward asserting India's legal sovereignty. Using terms like "Bhartiya" reinforces a national identity in law.
• Use of technology: the formal recognition of digital evidence, e-FIRs, and video recordings is a major step in modernizing law enforcement and judicial processes.
• Victim-centric approach: including community service, fast-track investigation timelines, and protections for sexual assault survivors reflects a shift toward rehabilitating victims, not just punishing perpetrators.
• Mob justice addressed: criminalizing lynching and hate crimes indicates a direct response to rising incidents of communal and caste-based violence—an area that was earlier left vague.
   

Major concerns and criticisms:

• Ambiguity in definitions: several definitions, including that of "terrorism," are broad and potentially open to misuse. Critics warn that vague language may lead to arbitrary enforcement and misuse of state power.
• Increased police powers: under Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, police custody can be extended up to 90 days for certain offences. This raises serious questions about custodial violence, due process, and human rights protections.
• Lack of public consultation: legal scholars and civil society organisations have criticized the government for rushing the drafting process without wide-scale public or expert consultation. Such profound changes to foundational laws demand transparency and debate.
• Digital divide: while the emphasis on electronic procedures is commendable, critics note the urban-rural digital divide. In many parts of India, police stations still lack basic infrastructure to support e-FIRs and digital evidence collection.
• Symbolism vs substance: merely renaming laws without changing the structural inequalities within the system may amount to symbolic reform. Critics question whether the core problems—like judicial delays, police brutality, and undertrial populations—will be effectively addressed.
   

Comparison with global standards: While several features align with the global trend—such as restorative justice, digitization, and victim rights—the new bills still lack a robust mechanism for accountability of law enforcement. Countries like the UK and the US have introduced independent oversight bodies and regular judicial audits, which are largely absent in India's legal ecosystem.
  Way forward:

• Wider stakeholder engagement: a democratic legal reform process must involve not just legislators and judges but also lawyers, academics, civil society, and the general public. The bills must undergo parliamentary scrutiny and public feedback before finalization.
• Training and capacity building: police officers, prosecutors, and judges must receive training on the new procedures and technological tools to ensure effective implementation.
• Monitoring and oversight: the government must establish independent review bodies to monitor how these new laws are enforced and whether they meet their objectives.

Conclusion
The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita , Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita and Bhartiya Sakshya bill represent a bold attempt to redefine criminal justice in India. They introduce much-needed modernization and attempt to shift from a colonial legacy to a more indigenous , technologically advanced legal system.

However, the true success of these laws will depend on their implementation , oversight , and the inclusivity of the reform process. As India stands at the cusp of a legal transformation , it must remember that real justice lies not just in changing laws –but in ensuring they serve the people they are meant to protect.

Written By: Smrati Vashistha (Practising Advocate)