CRIMINAL LAW REFORMS IN INDIA

Abstract

India’s criminal justice system underwent its most significant transformation since independence with the enactment of three new criminal laws in 2023: the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), replacing the Indian Penal Code; the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), replacing the Code of Criminal Procedure; and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, replacing the Indian Evidence Act. Implemented on July 1, 2024, these reforms aim to dismantle colonial-era legal frameworks and establish a modern, citizen-centric justice system.[1] This article examines the key reforms introduced under the BNS and BNSS, analyzing their potential to address systemic inefficiencies, protect fundamental rights, and align India’s criminal jurisprudence with contemporary realities.

I. Introduction

In 2023, India’s Parliament passed three transformative pieces of legislation that fundamentally altered the nation’s criminal legal framework. The Indian Penal Code (IPC), which had governed criminal offenses since 1860, was replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) gave way to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). These laws were implemented on July 1, 2024.[2] The IPC contained 511 sections across 23 chapters, while the BNS streamlined this to 358 sections across 20 chapters. Similarly, the CrPC’s 482 sections and 37 chapters were reorganized into 531 sections and 39 chapters under the BNSS.

Union Home Minister Amit Shah characterized this reform as the most significant overhaul of criminal law since independence, promising a justice system that is transparent, citizen-centric, time-bound, and protective of individual rights.[3] The previous laws, drafted during the colonial period, reflected British administrative priorities rather than the needs of independent India. These new laws aim not merely to update outdated provisions, but to fundamentally revamp the criminal justice system to serve the people rather than control them.

II. Need for Criminal Law Reforms

The imperative for reform arose from multiple systemic deficiencies inherent in the colonial-era criminal codes. The IPC and CrPC reflected laws designed according to British convenience, representing colonial-era legislation increasingly irrelevant to modern India. Several compelling factors necessitated comprehensive reform:

Outdated Legal Framework: Laws drafted in the 19th century could not adequately address 21st-century crimes, particularly those involving digital technology, cyberspace, and modern forms of terrorism.

Need for Modernization: Law enforcement mechanisms required updating to incorporate technological advances, forensic science, and contemporary investigative techniques.

Systemic Delays and Inefficiency: The justice system suffered from chronic delays, with cases pending for years or decades, denying timely justice to victims and accused alike.

Systematic Bias and Inequality: Colonial laws contained inherent biases that perpetuated inequality and failed to adequately protect vulnerable populations, particularly women and children.

By addressing these fundamental flaws, the reforms sought to establish a legal framework that prioritizes justice, efficiency, and equality for all citizens.

III. Major Reforms from IPC to BNS

1. Introduction of Community Service as Punishment

The IPC did not recognize community service as a form of punishment. The BNS, under Chapter II (General Explanations), Section 4, explicitly includes community service as a sentencing option for minor offenses.[4] This reform introduces restorative justice principles, allowing offenders to contribute positively to society while serving their sentences, particularly appropriate for first-time or minor offenders.

2. From Sedition to Acts Endangering Sovereignty, Unity and Integrity

Perhaps the most controversial provision of the IPC was Section 124A, which criminalized sedition. This section defined sedition as any attempt, through words (written or spoken), signs, or visible representations, to bring hatred or excite disaffection toward the government established by law. Conviction carried punishments ranging from a fine to life imprisonment.[5]

Critics argued that this provision infringed upon constitutional rights to free expression and was frequently misused to silence dissent and political opposition. The BNS has replaced Section 124A with Section 152 under Chapter VIII (Of Offences Against the State). While Section 124A no longer exists, Section 152 introduces similar but more narrowly defined provisions. It criminalizes acts that purposely or knowingly—through words (spoken or written), signs, visible representations, electronic communication, or financial means—excite or attempt to excite secession, armed rebellion, or subversive activities that endanger India’s sovereignty, unity, or integrity.[6]

The punishment under Section 152 is more severe: imprisonment extending up to seven years or life imprisonment, along with a fine. While this provision aims to address legitimate security concerns, questions remain about whether it sufficiently narrows the scope to prevent misuse against legitimate dissent.

3. Recognition of Snatching as a Distinct Offense

Under the IPC, snatching was not distinguished as a separate offense and was typically prosecuted as theft. The BNS, under Chapter XVII (Of Offences Against Property), Section 304, now specifically defines and criminalizes snatching. The provision defines snatching as the act of suddenly, quickly, or forcibly seizing or grabbing movable property from another person.[7]

This distinction acknowledges the unique nature of snatching crimes, which involve both theft and an element of force or sudden action that can traumatize victims. Offenders convicted of snatching face imprisonment extending up to three years and are liable to pay a fine. This specific provision allows for more appropriate prosecution and sentencing for this common urban crime.

4. Dedicated Chapter for Offenses Against Women and Children

The IPC scattered provisions relating to offenses against women and children across multiple chapters without dedicated focus. The BNS consolidates all such offenses under Chapter V (Of Offences Against Women and Children), creating a comprehensive framework that emphasizes the protection of these vulnerable groups.[8] This structural reform signals legislative intent to prioritize crimes against women and children and facilitate more coherent prosecution of such offenses.

5. Definition and Criminalization of Terrorist Acts

The IPC did not contain specific provisions defining or addressing terrorist acts, relying instead on specialized legislation. The BNS, under Chapter VI (Of Offences Affecting the Human Body), Section 113, now explicitly defines and criminalizes terrorist acts.[9] The provision defines terrorism as any act or offense that threatens or intends to threaten India’s unity, sovereignty, integrity, security, or economic security, or is committed with the intention to generate terror among the public or any section of the public in India or any foreign country.

This inclusion brings core terrorist offenses into the primary criminal code, ensuring consistent application and prosecution while maintaining harmony with specialized counter-terrorism legislation.

6. Sexual Intercourse by Employing Deceitful Means

The BNS introduces a new provision under Chapter V (Of Offences Against Women and Children), Section 69, addressing sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means or false promises.[10] This provision recognizes situations where a person engages in sexual intercourse with a woman by making deceitful promises—such as promises of marriage—without any intention of fulfilling such promises. While such conduct does not constitute rape under existing definitions, it represents a violation deserving criminal sanction.

Conviction under this provision carries imprisonment of either description for a term extending up to ten years, along with liability for a fine. This reform addresses a significant gap in the law, though its implementation will require careful judicial interpretation to distinguish between genuine relationship breakdowns and deliberate deception.

7. Decriminalization of Adultery

Section 497 of the IPC criminalized adultery, defining it as a sexual relationship between a man and a married woman without her husband’s consent, while the woman was not punishable.[11] This archaic provision treated women as property and perpetuated gender discrimination.

In the landmark case of Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), a five-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court declared Section 497 unconstitutional, holding that criminalization of adultery constituted arbitrary interference in the personal lives of individuals and violated constitutional guarantees of equality and privacy.[12] The BNS does not include any provision criminalizing adultery, formally recognizing that such matters belong to the civil realm and personal autonomy rather than criminal law.

IV. Major Reforms from CrPC to BNSS

1. Extended Police Custody Period (Section 187)

Section 167 of the CrPC limited police custody to a maximum of 15 days during the investigation period. Section 187 of the BNSS modifies this framework, allowing police custody of up to 15 days, which may be authorized in parts during the first 40 or 60 days of the 60 or 90-day period of detention, depending on the offense.[13] This reform provides investigating authorities greater flexibility in complex cases requiring extended interrogation, though it raises concerns about potential abuse and the rights of the accused.

2. Enhanced Pecuniary Jurisdiction of Magistrates (Section 23)

Section 29 of the CrPC limited the fine-imposing power of First Class Magistrates to ₹10,000 and Second Class Magistrates to ₹5,000. Section 23 of the BNSS significantly enhances this pecuniary jurisdiction, empowering First Class Magistrates to impose fines up to ₹50,000 and Second Class Magistrates up to ₹10,000.[14] Both classes of magistrates are now also empowered to impose community service as a sentence, expanding sentencing options and reducing burden on higher courts.

3. Production of Electronic Communication (Section 94)

Section 94 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 91 of the CrPC, has been expanded to explicitly include the production of electronic communications and communication devices likely to contain digital evidence.[15] This reform recognizes the central role of digital evidence in modern criminal investigations and provides clear legal authority for its collection and presentation.

4. Attachment and Forfeiture of Property (Section 107)

Section 107 introduces an entirely new provision allowing police officers, with court permission, to attach or forfeit property obtained as proceeds of crime.[16] This provision aims to increase the liability of fugitive criminals and acts as a compelling factor for their participation in proceedings instituted against them. By targeting the economic benefits of crime, this reform adds a powerful tool to combat organized crime and corruption.

5. Modified Provisions for Detention of Undertrials

Under the CrPC, an accused who had spent half the maximum period of imprisonment prescribed for an offense in detention was entitled to release on personal bond, except for offenses punishable by death. The BNSS adds further exceptions, excluding this provision for offenses punishable by life imprisonment and for persons against whom proceedings are pending for more than one offense.[17] This modification may result in longer pre-trial detention for certain categories of accused, raising concerns about the presumption of innocence and bail jurisprudence.

6. Expanded Authority for Medical Examination

The CrPC required that requests for medical examination in investigation cases, including rape cases, be made by an officer of at least Sub-Inspector rank. The BNSS removes this hierarchical restriction, allowing any police officer to request medical examination of a victim.[18] This procedural simplification may expedite investigations and reduce delays in collecting crucial medical evidence, particularly in time-sensitive cases.

7. Mandatory Forensic Investigation (Section 176)

Section 176 of the BNSS introduces mandatory forensic investigation for offenses punishable with at least seven years of imprisonment.[19] In such cases, forensic experts must visit crime scenes to collect forensic evidence and record the process using mobile phones or other electronic devices. States without forensic facilities are required to utilize facilities in other states. This reform aims to improve investigation quality and evidence reliability, though successful implementation depends on developing adequate forensic infrastructure nationwide.

8. Expanded Powers for Collection of Specimens (Section 176)

While the CrPC empowered magistrates to order specimen signatures or handwriting samples, the BNSS expands this authority to include finger impressions and voice samples.[20] Significantly, these samples may be collected from persons who have not been arrested, broadening investigative capabilities while raising privacy concerns that must be balanced against investigative needs.

9. Prescribed Timelines for Procedures

The BNSS introduces specific timelines for various criminal justice procedures, aiming to reduce systemic delays:[21]

• Medical practitioners examining rape victims must submit reports within seven days
– Judgments must be delivered within 30 days of completing arguments (extendable to 45 days)
– Victims must be informed of investigation progress within 90 days
– Sessions courts must frame charges within 60 days from the first hearing

These timelines represent a significant attempt to make the justice system more efficient and time-bound, though enforcement mechanisms and consequences for non-compliance remain to be clarified.

10. Use of Handcuffs

The BNSS permits the use of handcuffs in various cases, including organized crime.[22] This provision appears to contradict Supreme Court directives that restricted handcuffing to exceptional circumstances where the accused poses a flight risk or threat to others. The tension between this statutory provision and existing judicial precedent will require resolution through litigation or clarifying amendments.

11. Police Custody Authorization

The BNSS allows up to 15 days of police custody, which can be authorized in parts during the initial 40 or 60 days of the 60 or 90-day period of judicial custody.[23] This provision may lead to denial of bail for extended periods if police have not exhausted the 15-day custody limit, potentially affecting the rights of the accused to timely bail consideration.

12. Restricted Bail Provisions

The CrPC provided for bail for an accused detained for half the maximum imprisonment for the offense. The BNSS denies this facility to anyone facing multiple charges.[24] Since many cases involve charges under multiple sections, this restriction may significantly limit bail availability, potentially leading to longer pre-trial detention and overcrowding in jails.

V. Conclusion

The criminal law reforms of 2023 represent the first comprehensive overhaul of India’s criminal justice framework since independence. These reforms mark a historic attempt to transition from colonial-era laws designed for subjugation to modern frameworks aligned with constitutional values and contemporary realities. The introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita signifies more than mere renaming—it reflects a fundamental reimagining of the purpose and function of criminal law in a democratic society.

The reforms address critical gaps that had plagued the justice system for decades: recognition of digital evidence, introduction of community service as punishment, specific provisions for terrorism and crimes against women and children, and mandatory forensic investigation for serious offenses. These changes demonstrate legislative responsiveness to evolving societal needs and technological realities. The emphasis on timelines and procedural efficiency signals a commitment to reducing the systemic delays that have long denied justice to countless victims and accused persons.

However, several provisions raise legitimate concerns. The expanded police custody periods, restrictions on bail for persons facing multiple charges, and provisions permitting handcuffing must be carefully monitored to prevent abuse and protect constitutional rights. The success of these reforms will ultimately depend on their implementation—particularly the development of forensic infrastructure, training of police and judicial officers, and vigilance against misuse of provisions like Section 152 (acts endangering sovereignty).

While these reforms lay important groundwork for a more modern, efficient, and citizen-centric legal system, the coming years will reveal whether they truly serve their stated purpose of prioritizing people’s rights and delivering timely justice. The intent to break from colonial legacies and establish an indigenous criminal justice framework responsive to Indian society’s needs represents a meaningful step forward. Continued refinement based on implementation experience, judicial interpretation, and feedback from legal practitioners and citizens will be essential to realizing the full potential of these historic reforms.

References

[1] My Gov, Exploring India’s New Criminal Laws: A Paradigm Shift in Legal Framework, https://blog.mygov.in/exploring-indias-new-criminal-laws-a-paradigm-shift-in-legal-framework/ (last visited Dec. 23, 2025).
[2] The Hindu, Criminal Laws Biggest Reform Since Independence: Amit Shah (July 1, 2024), https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/criminal-laws-biggest-reform-since-independence-amit-shah/article69761083.ece.
[3] Id.
[4] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, § 4, India Code, https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/20062.
[5] Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 124A (repealed 2024), India Code, https://www.indiacode.nic.in/repealedfileopen?rfilename=A1860-45.pdf.
[6] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, § 152.
[7] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, § 304.
[8] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Ch. V.
[9] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, § 113.
[10] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, § 69.
[11] Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 497 (repealed 2018); Britannica, Adultery, https://www.britannica.com/topic/adultery (last visited Dec. 23, 2025).
[12] Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39 (India); Supreme Court Observer, Decriminalisation of Adultery: Background, https://www.scobserver.in/cases/joseph-shine-v-union-of-india-decriminalisation-of-adultery-background/ (last visited Dec. 23, 2025).
[13] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, § 187, India Code, https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/20099.
[14] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, § 23.
[15] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, § 94.
[16] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, § 107.
[17] CJP, BNSS Provisions on Detention of Undertrials, https://share.google/bjDAmkxgSXbc5q1LU (last visited Dec. 23, 2025).
[18] Drishti Judiciary, Major Changes Under Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/editorial/major-changes-under-bhartiya-nagarik-suraksha-sanhita-2023 (last visited Dec. 23, 2025).
[19] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, § 176.
[20] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, § 176.
[21] Drishti Judiciary, supra note 18.
[22] Id.
[23] Id.
[24] Id.