News Analysis India

Tag: Criminal laws

  • Defer implementation of new criminal laws: Jairam Ramesh

    Congress leader Jairam Ramesh on Saturday demanded that the enforcement of the three criminal laws, which are to come into force from July 1, be deferred, saying the Bills were “bulldozed” through Parliament. In a post on X, Ramesh said the implementation of the Bills be deferred to enable a thorough review and re-examination by a reconstituted Standing Committee on Home Affairs as they were passed at a time when 146 MPs had been suspended.

    “On Dec 25 2023, the President of India had given her assent to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The three far-reaching Bills had been bulldozed through Parliament without proper debate and discussion, and at a time when 146 MPs had been suspended from the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha,” Ramesh said.

    “Earlier the Bills had been bulldozed through the Standing Committee on Home Affairs without detailed interactions with stakeholders across the country and completely ignoring the written and very detailed dissent notes of a number of MPs belonging to different political parties, including the Indian National Congress, who were members of the Standing Committee,” he said. Ramesh said the three new laws are to come into effect from July 1, 2024, and the Congress is of the firm opinion that the date should be deferred to enable a thorough review and re-examination of the laws by the reconstituted Standing Committee on Home Affairs.

    He said the panel should have more extensive and meaningful consultations with various legal experts and organisations “who have serious concerns on the three laws as they stand”, after which it should be scrutinised by the 18th Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha as well.

    On Friday, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee had written a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi demanding deferment of the implementation of the three criminal laws, saying they were “hurriedly passed”. Similar demands have been made by the DMK as well.

  • Panel for criminal law reforms faced flak in 2020 for opacity; Congress demands wider consultations

    Express News Service

    NEW DELHI: Even as the Centre has proposed three new legislations to revamp the colonial-era criminal laws, the Criminal Law Reform Committee, which looked into the reform of the laws, faced severe criticism from several quarters for the ambiguity in its methodology and non-transparency after it was set up in May 2020.

    The Home Ministry was also widely criticised by the legal fraternity for setting up a private committee, bypassing the law commission and criminal law experts, and entrusting the job to academics. Despite demands from stakeholders, the committee also has not made the report of public consultations available on its website, experts pointed out.

    The panel, constituted during the Covid-19 lockdown, had drawn flak from several retired judges, bureaucrats and women activists, who flagged the lack of transparency, representation of women, and marginalised castes and minorities. After facing flak, the panel later included a female member.

    Many have also expressed concerns over the committee’s time limit to propose the reforms. The first five law commissions took more than 10 years to change one-third of the CrPC. Thomas Babington Macaulay, who chaired the first law commission, had drafted the IPC in 1837, more than two decades before it became law.

    Though Prof Ranbir Singh (former VC of National Law University, Delhi) held the position as the chairperson of the committee initially, Prof Srikrishna Deva Rao replaced him later. Other members include NLU VC GS Bajpai, Balraj Chauhan of NLU Jabalpur, senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, former judge GP Thareja, Praveen Sinha and Dr Padmini Singh.

    Legal experts including former SC Judge Madan Lokur, ex-Delhi HC Chief Justice AP Shah, and ex-judge RS Sodhi, wrote to the committee in July 2020.

    “We are concerned that, unlike previous efforts of similar magnitude, this committee does not consist of full-time members. The members continue to discharge their full professional commitments alongside their work on this committee,” they pointed out.

    Besides defining terrorism for the first time, the changes aimed at transforming the country’s criminal justice system include provisions for maximum capital punishment for mob lynching, sexual assault of minors, maximum imprisonment of 20 years for all types of gangrape and community service as one of the punishments for first-time petty offences.

    Congress calls for wider consultations

    The Congress on Sunday called for wider consultations involving experts and the general public on the three legislations that seek to overhaul India’s criminal justice system.

    In a statement, Congress general secretary Randeep Surjewala said that on August 11, without any prior intimation, public consultation or inviting suggestions from legal experts and other stakeholders, the Modi government introduced three Bills from its “black magic hat”, thereby restructuring the entire criminal law apparatus in a “clandestine, hidden and opaque manner.”

    In a detailed analysis, Surjewala said that Shah had “lied and misled” on many points.

    “The introductory remarks of the Home Minister gave away the fact that Amit Shah is himself out of depth, ignorant and oblivious to the entire exercise,” the Congress leader said.

    “Other than some credit seeking and point scoring in desperation, a hidden exercise, away from the public glare or stakeholders’ suggestions and wisdom, cannot serve the public purpose of reforming the criminal law structure of the country,” Surjewala said.

    After an extensive “scrutiny” of existing and proposed laws, he said the detailed definitions of terrorism and terrorist acts already exist since the time of Indira Gandhi and “the definition of terrorists in the IPC is an eyewash.”

    On the issue of FIR against mob lynching, claimed to be brought for the first time, he alleged that Shah has given a “huge concession” to mob lynchers.

    “The BJP government has watered down the lowest punishment for mob lynching to seven years (under BNS, 2023), whereas the lowest punishment under IPC for such crime was life imprisonment,” he claimed.

    Surjewala claimed that the issue of sexual assault on minors, all provisions already exist and so does the punishment of 20 years for gang rape.

    Shah had introduced the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Bill, 2023; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) Bill, 2023; and Bharatiya Sakshya (BS) Bill, 2023 that will replace the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Criminal Procedure Act, 1898, and Indian Evidence Act, 1872, respectively.

    Congress MP Manish Tewari has also called for wider consultations on the bills.

    “Some of these Acts, especially CrPC, have state amendments – given that law and order is a state subject. Each provision in each of these enactments has been extensively litigated over the past 150-100 years and the interpretation of each provision has been settled by judicial pronouncements by the privy council, federal court, Supreme Court, various high courts and in some cases even by subordinate courts,” Tewari said on X, formerly known as Twitter.

    These bills have serious implications on the fundamental rights enshrined in Part -III of the Constitution of India especially the Golden Triangle of Rights – Article-14, 19 and 21, he asserted.

    Former Congress leader Kapil Sibal also alleged that the government talks about ending colonial-era laws but wants to impose “dictatorship” through such legislation.

    The Rajya Sabha MP and former law minister called on the government to take back the three bills, 1872, alleging that if such laws become a reality, they would “imperil the future” of the country.

    (With additional inputs from PTI)

    NEW DELHI: Even as the Centre has proposed three new legislations to revamp the colonial-era criminal laws, the Criminal Law Reform Committee, which looked into the reform of the laws, faced severe criticism from several quarters for the ambiguity in its methodology and non-transparency after it was set up in May 2020.

    The Home Ministry was also widely criticised by the legal fraternity for setting up a private committee, bypassing the law commission and criminal law experts, and entrusting the job to academics. Despite demands from stakeholders, the committee also has not made the report of public consultations available on its website, experts pointed out.

    The panel, constituted during the Covid-19 lockdown, had drawn flak from several retired judges, bureaucrats and women activists, who flagged the lack of transparency, representation of women, and marginalised castes and minorities. After facing flak, the panel later included a female member.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2′); });

    Many have also expressed concerns over the committee’s time limit to propose the reforms. The first five law commissions took more than 10 years to change one-third of the CrPC. Thomas Babington Macaulay, who chaired the first law commission, had drafted the IPC in 1837, more than two decades before it became law.

    Though Prof Ranbir Singh (former VC of National Law University, Delhi) held the position as the chairperson of the committee initially, Prof Srikrishna Deva Rao replaced him later. Other members include NLU VC GS Bajpai, Balraj Chauhan of NLU Jabalpur, senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, former judge GP Thareja, Praveen Sinha and Dr Padmini Singh.

    Legal experts including former SC Judge Madan Lokur, ex-Delhi HC Chief Justice AP Shah, and ex-judge RS Sodhi, wrote to the committee in July 2020.

    “We are concerned that, unlike previous efforts of similar magnitude, this committee does not consist of full-time members. The members continue to discharge their full professional commitments alongside their work on this committee,” they pointed out.

    Besides defining terrorism for the first time, the changes aimed at transforming the country’s criminal justice system include provisions for maximum capital punishment for mob lynching, sexual assault of minors, maximum imprisonment of 20 years for all types of gangrape and community service as one of the punishments for first-time petty offences.

    Congress calls for wider consultations

    The Congress on Sunday called for wider consultations involving experts and the general public on the three legislations that seek to overhaul India’s criminal justice system.

    In a statement, Congress general secretary Randeep Surjewala said that on August 11, without any prior intimation, public consultation or inviting suggestions from legal experts and other stakeholders, the Modi government introduced three Bills from its “black magic hat”, thereby restructuring the entire criminal law apparatus in a “clandestine, hidden and opaque manner.”

    In a detailed analysis, Surjewala said that Shah had “lied and misled” on many points.

    “The introductory remarks of the Home Minister gave away the fact that Amit Shah is himself out of depth, ignorant and oblivious to the entire exercise,” the Congress leader said.

    “Other than some credit seeking and point scoring in desperation, a hidden exercise, away from the public glare or stakeholders’ suggestions and wisdom, cannot serve the public purpose of reforming the criminal law structure of the country,” Surjewala said.

    After an extensive “scrutiny” of existing and proposed laws, he said the detailed definitions of terrorism and terrorist acts already exist since the time of Indira Gandhi and “the definition of terrorists in the IPC is an eyewash.”

    On the issue of FIR against mob lynching, claimed to be brought for the first time, he alleged that Shah has given a “huge concession” to mob lynchers.

    “The BJP government has watered down the lowest punishment for mob lynching to seven years (under BNS, 2023), whereas the lowest punishment under IPC for such crime was life imprisonment,” he claimed.

    Surjewala claimed that the issue of sexual assault on minors, all provisions already exist and so does the punishment of 20 years for gang rape.

    Shah had introduced the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Bill, 2023; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) Bill, 2023; and Bharatiya Sakshya (BS) Bill, 2023 that will replace the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Criminal Procedure Act, 1898, and Indian Evidence Act, 1872, respectively.

    Congress MP Manish Tewari has also called for wider consultations on the bills.

    “Some of these Acts, especially CrPC, have state amendments – given that law and order is a state subject. Each provision in each of these enactments has been extensively litigated over the past 150-100 years and the interpretation of each provision has been settled by judicial pronouncements by the privy council, federal court, Supreme Court, various high courts and in some cases even by subordinate courts,” Tewari said on X, formerly known as Twitter.

    These bills have serious implications on the fundamental rights enshrined in Part -III of the Constitution of India especially the Golden Triangle of Rights – Article-14, 19 and 21, he asserted.

    Former Congress leader Kapil Sibal also alleged that the government talks about ending colonial-era laws but wants to impose “dictatorship” through such legislation.

    The Rajya Sabha MP and former law minister called on the government to take back the three bills, 1872, alleging that if such laws become a reality, they would “imperil the future” of the country.

    (With additional inputs from PTI)

  • New bill on criminal procedure to bring changes in police probe, trial with aid of technologies

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) Bill, which seeks to replace the colonial-era CrPC, proposes key changes in the criminal justice delivery system, including a provision for attachment of properties of proclaimed offenders in India and abroad and permitting handcuffs for the arrest of persons in some cases.

    The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Bill and the Bharatiya Sakshya (BS) Bill were also tabled in the Lok Sabha on Friday and they will replace the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Indian Evidence Act, of 1872.

    The proposed three bills have been sent to a parliamentary panel for further scrutiny.

    The Bill on criminal procedures is said to be in line with the Centre’s Digital India initiative and aims to give impetus to greater use of technology allowing trials via video-conferencing.

    The bill also proposes that no sanction will be required to prosecute a government official in cases like sexual offences and trafficking.

    ALSO READ | Current social realities, challenges addressed in proposed new criminal laws: Officials

    “A decision to grant or reject sanction to prosecute a public servant must be reached by the government within 120 days of receiving a request. If the government fails to do so, the sanction will be deemed to have been accorded,” it said.

    The BNSS has fresh provisions to make waging war against the government of a foreign nation at peace with India as well as committing depredation on the territory of such foreign State, an offence punishable with up to seven years in prison.

    Section 151 of the BNSS Bill says, “Whoever wages war against the government of any foreign state at peace with the government of India or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or for a term which may extend to seven years, with/without fine”

    The provision on attachment of property of a proclaimed offender abroad provides that the superintendent of police or commissioner of police shall make an application to the court and thereafter that court shall initiate steps to request assistance from a court or an authority in the contracting country for identification.

    Under the new law, the charge sheet will have to be filed within 90 days, and the court can extend the time to probe the agency by another 90 days looking at the situation.

    The judgement by the lower court has to be delivered 30 days after the conclusion of the trial.

    ALSO READ | New criminal laws will empower draconian police powers for ‘political ends’: Ex-law minister Sibal

    On the use of handcuffs, it said the police officer may, “Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence, use handcuff while effecting the arrest of a person who is a habitual, repeat offender who escaped from custody, who has committed the offence of organised crime, the offence of terrorist act, drug-related crime, or offence of illegal possession of arms and ammunition, murder, rape, acid attack, counterfeiting of coins and currency notes, human trafficking, sexual offences against children, offences against the State, including acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India or economic offences.”

    The Bill has provisions for the magistrate to order any person to give samples of his signature, handwriting, voice or finger impressions for the purpose of investigation without being arrested.

    With regard to detention by police, there are provisions in the bill for police to detain or remove any person resisting, refusing or ignoring, or disregarding directions given as part of preventive action.

    ALSO READ | Rape of minor, mob lynching may invite death, acts against nation to be punished with life

    According to the new bill, a person accused of a crime can be tried and convicted in his absence.

    “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Sanhita for the time being in force, when a person declared as a proclaimed offender, whether or not charged jointly, has absconded to evade trial and there is no immediate prospect of arresting him, it shall be deemed to operate as a waiver of the right of such person to be present and tried in person, and the Court shall, after recording reasons in writing, in the interest of justice, proceed with the trial in the like manner and with like effect as if he was present, under this Sanhita and pronounce the judgment,” reads section 356 of the BNSS Bill.

    The BNSS Bill provides for the use of technology and forensic sciences in matters of investigating a crime, lodging FIRs, and sending summons through electronic modes.

    The legislation adopts a citizen-centric approach for the supply of a first information report and informs victims about the progress of the case, including by digital means and the trials will be facilitated via video conferencing.

    On withdrawal of cases, the Bill says if a case with a punishment of over seven years is to be withdrawn, the victim will be given a chance of being heard before the process is initiated.

    Regarding ‘Zero FIR’, the Bill proposes that citizens can lodge an FIR at any police station irrespective of jurisdiction limits and the FIR must be transferred within 15 days to the police station having jurisdiction over the place of crime.

    The trials, appeal proceedings, and recording of depositions including those of public servants and police officers, may be held in electronic mode and the statement of the accused too can be recorded through video-conferencing, the Bill proposed.

    According to the Bill, summons, warrants, documents, police reports, and statements of evidence can be done in electronic form.

    The new proposed law has a provision on procedures for the timeframe to file mercy petitions in death sentence cases and after being informed by jail authorities about the disposal of the petition of a convict sentenced to death, he, or his legal heir or relative can submit a mercy petition within 30 days to the Governor.

    If rejected, the person can petition the President within 60 days and no appeal against the order of the President shall lie in any court, it proposed.

    On the sanction to prosecute a government official in criminal cases, the new law proposes: “A decision to grant or reject sanction to prosecute a public servant must be reached by the government within 120 days of receiving a request. If the government fails to do so, the sanction will be deemed to have been accorded.”

    No sanction is required in cases including sexual offences, trafficking, etc, it said.

    The BNSS Bill, which will replace CrPC, now has 533 sections, 160 sections of old law have been changed, nine new sections have been added and nine sections have been repealed.

    The home minister had said in Lok Sabha that provision has been made in the law to digitise the entire process from FIR to case diary, case diary to charge sheet and from charge sheet to judgement.

    Videography has been compulsory at the time of search and seizure, which will be part of the case and this will save innocent citizens from being implicated, the minister had said, adding “no charge sheet will be valid without such recording by the police.”

    On the filing of the charge sheet, the trial courts will now be bound to give notice of framing of charges to the accused person within 60 days, the minister had said.

    The trial judge will have to give the decision within 30 days of the completion of the argument, this will not keep the decision pending for years, and the decision will have to be made available online within seven days.

    NEW DELHI: The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) Bill, which seeks to replace the colonial-era CrPC, proposes key changes in the criminal justice delivery system, including a provision for attachment of properties of proclaimed offenders in India and abroad and permitting handcuffs for the arrest of persons in some cases.

    The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Bill and the Bharatiya Sakshya (BS) Bill were also tabled in the Lok Sabha on Friday and they will replace the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Indian Evidence Act, of 1872.

    The proposed three bills have been sent to a parliamentary panel for further scrutiny.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });

    The Bill on criminal procedures is said to be in line with the Centre’s Digital India initiative and aims to give impetus to greater use of technology allowing trials via video-conferencing.

    The bill also proposes that no sanction will be required to prosecute a government official in cases like sexual offences and trafficking.

    ALSO READ | Current social realities, challenges addressed in proposed new criminal laws: Officials

    “A decision to grant or reject sanction to prosecute a public servant must be reached by the government within 120 days of receiving a request. If the government fails to do so, the sanction will be deemed to have been accorded,” it said.

    The BNSS has fresh provisions to make waging war against the government of a foreign nation at peace with India as well as committing depredation on the territory of such foreign State, an offence punishable with up to seven years in prison.

    Section 151 of the BNSS Bill says, “Whoever wages war against the government of any foreign state at peace with the government of India or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or for a term which may extend to seven years, with/without fine”

    The provision on attachment of property of a proclaimed offender abroad provides that the superintendent of police or commissioner of police shall make an application to the court and thereafter that court shall initiate steps to request assistance from a court or an authority in the contracting country for identification.

    Under the new law, the charge sheet will have to be filed within 90 days, and the court can extend the time to probe the agency by another 90 days looking at the situation.

    The judgement by the lower court has to be delivered 30 days after the conclusion of the trial.

    ALSO READ | New criminal laws will empower draconian police powers for ‘political ends’: Ex-law minister Sibal

    On the use of handcuffs, it said the police officer may, “Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence, use handcuff while effecting the arrest of a person who is a habitual, repeat offender who escaped from custody, who has committed the offence of organised crime, the offence of terrorist act, drug-related crime, or offence of illegal possession of arms and ammunition, murder, rape, acid attack, counterfeiting of coins and currency notes, human trafficking, sexual offences against children, offences against the State, including acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India or economic offences.”

    The Bill has provisions for the magistrate to order any person to give samples of his signature, handwriting, voice or finger impressions for the purpose of investigation without being arrested.

    With regard to detention by police, there are provisions in the bill for police to detain or remove any person resisting, refusing or ignoring, or disregarding directions given as part of preventive action.

    ALSO READ | Rape of minor, mob lynching may invite death, acts against nation to be punished with life

    According to the new bill, a person accused of a crime can be tried and convicted in his absence.

    “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Sanhita for the time being in force, when a person declared as a proclaimed offender, whether or not charged jointly, has absconded to evade trial and there is no immediate prospect of arresting him, it shall be deemed to operate as a waiver of the right of such person to be present and tried in person, and the Court shall, after recording reasons in writing, in the interest of justice, proceed with the trial in the like manner and with like effect as if he was present, under this Sanhita and pronounce the judgment,” reads section 356 of the BNSS Bill.

    The BNSS Bill provides for the use of technology and forensic sciences in matters of investigating a crime, lodging FIRs, and sending summons through electronic modes.

    The legislation adopts a citizen-centric approach for the supply of a first information report and informs victims about the progress of the case, including by digital means and the trials will be facilitated via video conferencing.

    On withdrawal of cases, the Bill says if a case with a punishment of over seven years is to be withdrawn, the victim will be given a chance of being heard before the process is initiated.

    Regarding ‘Zero FIR’, the Bill proposes that citizens can lodge an FIR at any police station irrespective of jurisdiction limits and the FIR must be transferred within 15 days to the police station having jurisdiction over the place of crime.

    The trials, appeal proceedings, and recording of depositions including those of public servants and police officers, may be held in electronic mode and the statement of the accused too can be recorded through video-conferencing, the Bill proposed.

    According to the Bill, summons, warrants, documents, police reports, and statements of evidence can be done in electronic form.

    The new proposed law has a provision on procedures for the timeframe to file mercy petitions in death sentence cases and after being informed by jail authorities about the disposal of the petition of a convict sentenced to death, he, or his legal heir or relative can submit a mercy petition within 30 days to the Governor.

    If rejected, the person can petition the President within 60 days and no appeal against the order of the President shall lie in any court, it proposed.

    On the sanction to prosecute a government official in criminal cases, the new law proposes: “A decision to grant or reject sanction to prosecute a public servant must be reached by the government within 120 days of receiving a request. If the government fails to do so, the sanction will be deemed to have been accorded.”

    No sanction is required in cases including sexual offences, trafficking, etc, it said.

    The BNSS Bill, which will replace CrPC, now has 533 sections, 160 sections of old law have been changed, nine new sections have been added and nine sections have been repealed.

    The home minister had said in Lok Sabha that provision has been made in the law to digitise the entire process from FIR to case diary, case diary to charge sheet and from charge sheet to judgement.

    Videography has been compulsory at the time of search and seizure, which will be part of the case and this will save innocent citizens from being implicated, the minister had said, adding “no charge sheet will be valid without such recording by the police.”

    On the filing of the charge sheet, the trial courts will now be bound to give notice of framing of charges to the accused person within 60 days, the minister had said.

    The trial judge will have to give the decision within 30 days of the completion of the argument, this will not keep the decision pending for years, and the decision will have to be made available online within seven days.