Iron out flaws in new criminal laws

THE new criminal laws (NCLs) came into force on July 1, 2024, with the hope that the criminal justice system (CJS) of British vintage would transform into a people-centric, progressive and potent institution to deliver justice (Nyaya) and guarantee security (Suraksha) to the people (Nagarik). Though one year in the life of a statute is not enough to draw a conclusion about its success or failure in meeting people’s expectations, it is vital to take note of the early warning signs.

Before the rollout of the NCLs, many law professionals expressed apprehension about their workability and adoptability. It is commendable that all wings of the CJS have made the transition from the old laws to the new ones without noticeable problems from the outset.

Throughout the country, first information reports (FIRs) are being registered and investigated as per the new laws. This became possible thanks to the massive training campaign that was planned by the Ministry of Home Affairs and executed zealously by various stakeholders. Even law colleges have adopted the changes in the academic curriculum without much difficulty.

Strengthening and according highest priority to the provisions relating to safety and protection of women and children are among the key features of the new penal law. They are being put to use in right earnest. Rationalisation of punishment, keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offences, was a much-awaited exercise; its impact would be visible in due course.

Concern for sovereignty, unity and integrity of India is of paramount importance and it is singularly exhibited in Section 48 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which provides for the registration of cases against anti-national elements abetting crimes in India while operating from abroad. The trial in such cases — and those against proclaimed offenders — can be held in absentia as per Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

It is, however, a harsh reality that these sections remain underutilised against terrorists and gangsters who make ransom calls and incite terrorism in India from foreign lands.

At the same time, the application of Section 152 of the BNS, criminalising acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, has been a subject of controversy. It has come under scrutiny of the Supreme Court for its alleged misuse to curb freedom of expression.

Since the NCLs provide for digitalisation of criminal investigations and mandatory use of forensic tools to bring in transparency, large-scale computerisation is the need of the hour. It is regrettable that progress on this front is not only slow but also suffers from lack of technical knowhow. Most of the states are not able to generate sufficient financial resources to purchase hardware and software required for scientific and digital investigations.

The Central Government has launched several schemes to provide financial assistance to the states, including ‘Cyber Crime Prevention against Women and Children’, setting up of cyber forensic-cum-training laboratories and ‘Assistance to States & UTs for Modernisation of Police’. It is up to the states to use these schemes for resource augmentation and capacity-building.

Recruiting an adequate number of cyber-literate and digitally trained manpower to transform the traditional lathi-wielding constabulary into a tech-savvy police force is a big challenge due to financial crunch and reluctance on the part of political masters. Hitherto, the police department is the main source of employment for less-educated rural youth, and any change in the recruitment policy is going to meet stiff resistance from legislators.

Framing of new rules and protocols and the software required to interlink the functioning of the constituents of the CJS, which are essential to make the NCLs fully operational, are still in a nascent stage. It is a monumental task which cannot be undertaken without reviewing and tweaking the Rules of Business of the Home Department, Rules and Orders of high courts, Police Rules, Prison Manuals and the charter of duties of the prosecution agency. It would require the meeting of minds of all stakeholders to finalise these regulations under a unified command. Tinkering with the existing rules by various wings of the CJS to fit them into the new mould would not suffice as they are bound to come in conflict with operational demands of other domain areas.

While introducing the NCLs, it was declared that these laws were people-centric and justice-oriented, especially for the victims of crimes. Concepts like witness protection, victim compensation and the right to active participation of victims in investigation and prosecution proceedings were introduced. However, the practicability and utility of these provisions is yet to be tested for want of application in most of the jurisdictions. The plight of victims of cyber frauds and digital arrests is visible in the failure to recover their money, with no immediate solution in sight.

The NCLs envisaged speedy justice as timelines for some of the proceedings in courts were fixed; these limits are hardly adhered to, being advisory in nature. Speedy justice would remain a distant dream unless the number of courts are increased manifold and procedures simplified to address core issues responsible for delays.

Some confident steps have been taken in the right direction. Normally, it takes decades for a law to mature and find its purposeful application. It’s time to undertake a review of the NCLs to rectify drafting mistakes, iron out faultlines and address emergent public concerns with an open mind to enhance the utility of these laws.

KP Singh is former DGP, Haryana.

Comments