Published On: April 11th 2026
Authored By: Ankita Milind Gaikwad
Vasantdada Patil Prathishthan Law College, Sion
Abstract
This article analyses recent developments in India’s criminal justice system following the enforcement of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. It examines how these laws have altered criminal procedure, evidentiary standards and judicial oversight, with specific focus on their impact on justice delivery during the initial phase of implementation. The study relies on recent Supreme Court decisions, policy measures and implementation data to assess the practical functioning of the reforms.
The article finds that courts have played a decisive role in shaping the application of the new laws, particularly in matters relating to bail, undertrial detention and procedural timelines. While technology-driven reforms such as electronic evidence, virtual testimony and digital case tracking show potential to reduce delay, their effectiveness remains uneven due to infrastructural and personnel constraints. The article argues that the success of the new criminal law regime depends less on statutory design and more on institutional capacity, judicial interpretation and continuous policy evaluation. It concludes that sustained investment and constitutional oversight are essential to ensure that criminal law reform results in fair, efficient and credible justice delivery.
I. Introduction
India’s criminal justice system has entered a new phase with the replacement of the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. These changes mark a conscious move away from colonial-era laws that had long been criticised for procedural delays, limited accountability and inadequate responsiveness to present-day realities. The new criminal law framework aims to make the justice system more efficient, transparent and accessible, while remaining anchored in constitutional principles.
The transition, however, has not been without challenges. Recent developments under the new regime reveal the practical difficulties faced by investigating agencies, courts and legal practitioners in adapting to revised procedures, technological requirements and stricter timelines. While the executive has highlighted the promise of faster and more citizen-centric justice, courts have been careful to ensure that the pursuit of efficiency does not dilute fundamental rights such as fair trial and personal liberty.
Overview of India’s New Criminal Law Regime
India’s new criminal law regime consists of three interlinked legislations that collectively govern offences, criminal procedure and evidentiary standards. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 operates as the substantive criminal law, defining offences and prescribing punishments. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 regulates the process of investigation, arrest, trial and bail, while the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 lays down the rules relating to admissibility and evaluation of evidence. These statutes together replace the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act, which had formed the backbone of India’s criminal justice system for over a century.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita introduces modifications to several offence categories and seeks to rationalise punishments, including the incorporation of community service as a sentencing option for certain offences. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita places a strong procedural emphasis on timelines, accountability of investigating officers and the use of technology-driven processes such as electronic FIRs, digital summons and audio-video recording of proceedings. These procedural changes are intended to reduce delays at the stages of investigation and trial. Taken together, the three statutes form an integrated framework that attempts to govern India’s criminal justice process in a more time-bound and technologically responsive manner.
II. Procedural Reforms under the BNSS and Their Impact on Justice Delivery
Among the three new criminal laws, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 arguably carries the greatest practical significance, as it governs the day-to-day functioning of the criminal justice system.[1] While defining offences is important, it is procedure that determines whether justice is actually delivered in a timely and fair manner. For decades, delays in investigation and trial have remained one of the most persistent criticisms of India’s criminal process, often resulting in prolonged undertrial detention and loss of public faith in the system.[2] The BNSS attempts to respond to these concerns by introducing a more time-bound and accountable procedural framework.[3]
A key feature of the BNSS is the emphasis on statutory timelines at various stages of criminal proceedings. The law places defined responsibilities on investigating agencies, prosecutors and courts to ensure that cases progress without unnecessary delay.[4] The objective, as articulated by the executive, is to reduce procedural uncertainty and reassure citizens that approaching the criminal justice system will not lead to endless litigation. This marks a shift in legislative focus from discretionary procedure towards structured efficiency.
However, judicial observations during the initial phase of implementation reveal a measured approach. High Courts have cautioned that procedural timelines, though desirable, cannot be enforced in a manner that undermines the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial.[5] Courts have reiterated that efficiency must operate within the bounds of due process, particularly at a time when institutions are still adjusting to new procedural requirements. This reflects a consistent judicial concern that speed, if prioritised without adequate safeguards, may compromise individual liberty.[6]
The BNSS also enhances scrutiny of investigative conduct by reinforcing judicial oversight over procedural lapses. Investigating agencies are increasingly expected to justify delays and comply with the standards set under the new law. At the same time, structural constraints such as shortages in police personnel and vacancies in the lower judiciary pose serious challenges to the uniform enforcement of these timelines.[7]
Judicial Response: Courts as the Real Test of the New Criminal Laws
The first year of implementation of India’s new criminal law framework has made one thing clear: the true impact of these reforms is being shaped not in legislative speeches, but in courtrooms. While the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeks to introduce speed and certainty into criminal procedure, courts have taken on the task of ensuring that this push for efficiency does not come at the cost of personal liberty and due process.
This approach is most visible in cases dealing with undertrial detention. In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons v. Director General of Prisons, the Supreme Court addressed the application of Section 479 of the BNSS, which allows for the release of undertrials who have spent a substantial portion of the maximum sentence in custody.[8] Rather than treating the provision as a technical amendment, the Court read it as a remedial measure aimed at correcting long-standing injustices within the prison system. Significantly, the Court placed an active duty on prison authorities to identify eligible prisoners, including women inmates, signalling a shift from reactive to proactive protection of liberty.
The influence of the BNSS on bail jurisprudence has also been evident beyond its immediate statutory framework. In Badshah Majid Malik v. Directorate of Enforcement, the Supreme Court granted bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act by drawing upon the principle embodied in Section 479 of the BNSS.[9] The Court’s reasoning reflected a broader concern with proportionality, particularly where prolonged incarceration begins to resemble punishment without conviction. This judgment is important not only for its outcome, but for what it suggests: that the new criminal procedure is shaping judicial thinking even in cases governed by special statutes.
High Courts, meanwhile, have played a crucial role in tempering the implementation of procedural timelines under the BNSS. While acknowledging the need to address systemic delays, courts have cautioned against enforcing timelines in a rigid manner that ignores institutional limitations. Judicial observations have highlighted gaps in infrastructure, shortages of trained personnel and uneven technological readiness across States. By allowing procedural flexibility where necessary, courts have sought to prevent reform from turning into procedural injustice.
Taken together, these judicial responses demonstrate that the success of the new criminal laws depends as much on interpretation as on legislation. Courts have neither resisted reform nor accepted it uncritically. Instead, they have positioned themselves as guardians of constitutional values during a period of transition, ensuring that the pursuit of speed and efficiency remains aligned with fairness and liberty.
III. Technology and Evidence Reforms: Changing How Truth Is Found in Criminal Trials
For decades, one of the weakest links in India’s criminal justice system has been the process of proving facts in court. Cases have often collapsed not because the crime did not occur, but because witnesses turned hostile, documents went missing, or evidence could not withstand procedural scrutiny. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, along with allied procedural changes under the BNSS, attempts to confront this reality by rethinking how evidence is collected, presented and assessed in criminal trials.[10] Rather than treating technology as an auxiliary tool, the new framework places it at the centre of evidentiary reform.
A major shift under the new regime is the formal acceptance and standardisation of electronic evidence. The notification of e-evidence and e-summons across several States and Union Territories reflects an effort to reduce delays caused by physical service of summons and manual record-keeping.[11] By recognising digital records as a routine form of proof, the law seeks to minimise opportunities for manipulation while also accelerating the early stages of criminal proceedings. If used consistently, these measures can significantly reduce the time lost to procedural inefficiencies before a trial even begins.
The introduction of Nyaya Shruti, which enables courts to record witness testimony through video conferencing, marks another important departure from traditional courtroom practice. This reform has particular relevance for vulnerable and reluctant witnesses, for whom repeated physical appearances often become a source of intimidation or distress.[12] Virtual testimony offers a practical solution to long-standing problems of non-appearance and adjournments, while also reducing logistical burdens on courts. At the same time, judicial oversight remains crucial to ensure that remote proceedings do not dilute the accused’s right to cross-examination or the court’s ability to assess credibility.
Beyond individual trials, technological integration has also been pursued at the institutional level. The expansion of the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS), connecting thousands of police stations and courts, aims to improve coordination across the criminal justice system. By enabling real-time access to case records and investigation status, the reform seeks to address administrative delays that have historically undermined accountability and case management.
Yet, the promise of technology-driven justice remains uneven in practice. Judicial observations and policy assessments have repeatedly pointed to disparities in digital infrastructure, particularly in rural and under-resourced regions. Shortages of forensic laboratories, limited internet connectivity and lack of trained personnel continue to restrict effective implementation. Without sustained investment in capacity-building, there is a real risk that technological reforms may benefit only select jurisdictions, leaving structural inequalities intact.
Despite these limitations, the emphasis on digital evidence and remote participation represents a meaningful attempt to modernise criminal adjudication. When supported by adequate infrastructure and judicial vigilance, these reforms have the potential to strengthen the credibility of evidence and reduce avoidable delays. In doing so, they move the criminal justice system closer to a process where outcomes depend less on procedural accident and more on factual truth.
IV. Conclusion
The replacement of colonial criminal statutes with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam reflects a serious attempt to modernise India’s criminal justice system. An examination of procedural reforms and early judicial responses indicates that courts have played a crucial role in preventing efficiency-driven reforms from undermining constitutional guarantees of personal liberty and fair trial.
However, for these reforms to translate into meaningful change, legislative innovation must be supported by institutional strengthening. Going forward, priority should be given to improving digital and forensic infrastructure, particularly at the trial court level. Addressing vacancies in police forces and the judiciary is equally essential to ensure compliance with procedural timelines. Continuous training of investigators, prosecutors and judges will help reduce inconsistency in implementation, while periodic judicial review can ensure that efficiency remains balanced with fairness. If supported by these measures, the new criminal law framework has the potential to deliver a justice system that is not only faster, but also more credible and rights-oriented. Only through sustained investment in infrastructure, personnel and training can the promise of a transparent, time-bound and citizen-centric justice system be meaningfully realised.
References
[1] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, No. 46 of 2023, INDIA CODE (2023).
[2] Law Commission of India, Report No. 268: Amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure (2017).
[3] Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Annual Report 2023-24 (2024).
[4] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, No. 46 of 2023, INDIA CODE (2023).
[5] INDIA CONST. art. 21.
[6] Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81 (India).
[7] VisionIAS, New Criminal Laws: Implementation Challenges (2025), https://visionias.in/current-affairs/news-today/2025-07-02/polity-and-governance/one-year-of-new-criminal-laws-which-came-into-force-on-1st-july-2024.
[8] Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons v. Director General of Prisons, (2024) [citation to be verified with full SCC reporter].
[9] Badshah Majid Malik v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2024) SCC Online [citation to be verified with full SCC reporter].
[10] Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, No. 47 of 2023, INDIA CODE (2023).
[11] Ministry of Home Affairs, Notification on e-Evidence and e-Summons (2024-25).
[12] Ministry of Home Affairs, Nyaya Shruti: Virtual Recording of Witness Testimony (2025).
[13] New criminal laws people-centric for justice, criminals cannot escape them: HM Amit Shah, The New Indian Express (July 1, 2025), https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2025/Jul/01/new-criminal-laws-people-centric-for-justice-criminals-cannot-escape-them-hm-amit-shah.
[14] Affordable, accessible and approachable: Amit Shah unveils new criminal laws; a major reform for justice in India, Times of India (July 2, 2025), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/affordable-accessible-and-approachable-amit-shah-unveils-new-criminal-laws-a-major-reform-for-justice-in-india/amp_articleshow/122195385.cms.
[15] Three new criminal laws biggest reform of 21st century: Amit Shah, The Economic Times (2025), https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/three-new-criminal-laws-biggest-reform-of-21st-century-amit-shah/articleshow/112267386.cms.
