FROM IPC TO BNS: A NEW ERA FOR POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY AND PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS          

INTRODUCTION

The Indian Penal Code (IPC), which was passed in 1860 during the colonial period, was the main law that governed India’s criminal justice system for more than 160 years. The IPC was written while India was still under British rule. It was a complete set of criminal laws that covered crimes, punishments, and procedures in independent India as well. But as society, technology, and constitutional values changed over time, the IPC slowly became less relevant. The socio-political conditions of twenty-first-century India necessitated a legal framework that more accurately embodies democratic principles, individual rights, and the requirements of a digital and interconnected global landscape.

In 2023, the Government of India recognized this need and introduced three new criminal law codes: the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) replaced the IPC, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) replaced the Indian Evidence Act. These laws all work together to bring India’s criminal justice system up to date and make sure it follows the Constitution’s requirements for fairness, efficiency, and justice.

This article centres on a principal commitment of this reform- augmenting police accountability and guaranteeing procedural equity in the administration of criminal justice. It looks at the differences between the BNS and the IPC, how it affects policing and due process, and the problems that come up when trying to reach its goals.

OBJECTIVES AND STRUCTURE OF THE BNS

Modernization and decolonization are the two main goals of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The BNS aims to establish a more victim-sensitive and citizen-centric legal system, whereas the IPC mirrored a colonial model centred on punishment and deterrence.

1. Simplifying language and structure: The BNS restructures chapters to make offenses and punishments more understandable and employs language that is clearer and gender-neutral.
2. Introducing new offenses: It includes offenses like organized crime, cyber fraud, and terrorism that were not previously acknowledged or sufficiently addressed.
3. Ensuring time-bound justice: By imposing stringent deadlines for the investigation, filing of the charge sheet, and trial, the BNS supplements the BNSS’s procedural reforms.
4. Technology integration: It acknowledges the importance of video recording, digital evidence, and forensic assistance in guaranteeing transparency and accountability.
5. Balancing State power with individual rights: It seeks to ensure procedural safeguards and check police arbitrariness by tying in with reforms.

Therefore, in order to fulfil the constitutional purpose of justice, the BNS represents a structural reimagining of criminal law rather than just a change in terminology.

MAJOR CHANGES FROM THE IPC TO THE BNS-

The BNS adds important substantive and procedural innovations while preserving a large portion of the IPC’s fundamental reasoning.

1. Reclassification and Reorganization of Offenses

The BNS has 358 sections, compared to the IPC’s 511 sections, which were created by eliminating obsolete offenses and combining redundant provisions. A new provision addressing acts endangering India’s sovereignty, unity, and integrity has replaced outdated colonial offenses like “sedition” under Section 124A.

2. Updated Definitions of Crime

The BNS adds specific provisions for organized crime, cyber offenses, and terrorism (Section 111), areas that the IPC never considered. With this modification, the code is brought up to date and law enforcement is given more authority to address modern threats.

3. Victim-centred and gender-neutral language
   
   The BNS uses gender-neutral language for sexual offenses and offers improved victim rights, such as the right to information and protection during trial, in contrast to the IPC, which was heavily gendered.
   
   4. Strengthened Penalties and Other Sanctions
   
   The BNS encourages community service and restitution in certain situations, adding a reformative element, even though some penalties have been raised to reflect the seriousness of contemporary offenses.
   
   5. Including Procedural Reforms
   
   The BNSS and the BNS share many provisions, especially those pertaining to arrests, investigations, and gathering evidence. Mechanisms for accountability and procedural justice are strengthened by this coordination.

IMPACT ON POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY

A key component of any criminal justice reform is police accountability. In the past, excessive police discretion under the IPC and the previous procedural code frequently resulted in abuses of authority, erroneous arrests, torture in detention, and delays in investigations. Together with the BNSS, the BNS aims to resolve these persistent problems.

1. Required Forensic Participation

Electronic records and forensic evidence are crucial in cases of serious offenses under the new system. Forensic investigations are required by the BNSS for offenses carrying a seven-year sentence or longer. This encourages scientific policing by reducing the capricious reliance on witness statements or confessions.

2. Transparency and Digital Documentation

Video recording is encouraged at every stage of the investigation, including statement recording, search, and seizure. Better transparency in supervision is ensured by the implementation of digital FIRs and online case tracking.

3. Investigation and Charge Filing Time-Bound
   
   To prevent cases from lingering indefinitely, the BNS sets deadlines for charge sheet submission and investigation. This shields the accused as well as the victim from the long-standing delays in the legal process.
   
   4. Responsibility via Monitoring
   
   Investigations must be reviewed by senior police officers, and failure to follow protocol may result in departmental or even criminal repercussions. As a result, the police hierarchy now has vertical accountability.
   
   5. A decrease in arbitrary detentions
   
   The BNS and the BNSS stress that not all cases that are cognizable require an arrest. According to the guidelines set forth in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), the police must document the reasons for the arrest and advise the accused of their rights.
4. Reforms Focused on Victims
   
   By making sure victims are informed about the status of the investigation, have access to evidence, and receive support during the prosecution, the BNS encourages victim participation. This improves police operations’ transparency and builds public trust.

PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS AND ACCUSED PERSON’S RIGHTS

Procedural fairness – the principle that gives every accused person a fair and impartial trial – is a foundational principle of the Indian Constitution. The BNS, in consonance with the BNSS and BSA, attempts to enhance this principle through the means set out below:

1. Presumption of Innocence and Right to Counsel

The BNS respects the constitutional guarantees under Articles 20 and 21. Accused persons have the right to consult a lawyer, and no confession made to a police officer can be used as evidence unless it has been recorded and verified under the supervision of a magistrate.

2. Use of Technology in Trials

Video-conferencing for recording evidence, lodging documents electronically, and issuing e-summons are encouraged. These assist in limiting delays and preventing the tampering of evidence, while still guaranteeing the procedural fairness of the process.

3. Enhanced Role of the Magistrate

Magistrates now have the authority to supervise the investigation, order forensic examinations, and ensure compliance with the rights of the accused. Such oversight is an important limit of police overreach.

4. Safeguards Against Custodial Improprieties

The reforms confirm existing safeguards against custodial violence and illegal detention. The previously recognized rights such as Right to Information of Arrest and the Right to a Medical Examination are now codified and add to those principles recognized in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994).

CHALLENGES AND CRITICISMS

Although the BNS is ambitious in its aspiration, it has engendered criticism from academics, members of the bar, and international human rights advocates.

1. Colonial Continuity

Critics contend that while the BNS attempts to change terminology, much of the language in the provisions of the IPC remains substantively the same. Therefore, the reform may have a continuity of colonialism rather than a substantive change.

2. Police Power

Terrorism, organized crime, and sovereignty are drafted so broadly, the police will have wide powers, which may be abused in political or social control.

3. Institutional Constraints

Effective implementation will require extensive police training, digital infrastructure, and forensic capacity – which continue to face real limits across India – particularly in rural districts.

4. Judicial Constraints

Although the BNS promotes delayed trials, the structural backlog of India’s court system can discourage/build upon aspirations. Unless to parallel reforms, the timeline intends to remain aspirational.

5. Awareness and Legal Literacy

As public awareness and the profession remain low to the new codes. Continued and consistent education of Judges, Officers, and Lawyers will be an integral step to consistent interpretation and application.

JUDICIAL AND POLICY PERSPECTIVE

Historically, the Indian judiciary has fulfilled the role of being the guardian of procedural fairness. Thus, it is anticipated that the courts will interpret the BNS consistently with constitutional rights and older jurisprudence.

The famous case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), which expanded the scope of “procedure established by law” to incorporate fairness and reasonableness, continues to serve as a benchmark for judicial interpretation of the BNS and BNSS.

In the near future, we can expect judicial scrutiny to focus on:

• The proportionality of enhanced police powers in relation to new offences;
• The admissibility and authenticity of digital and/or forensic evidence;
• Protection of an individual’s right to privacy in a context of rapidly increased surveillance powers; and
• The scope of accountability measures for investigative agencies.

Policy reform needs to occur hand-in-hand with judicial oversight. For example, establishing independent police complaints authorities, guaranteeing forensic independence, and creating citizen grievance mechanisms will assist in the task of converting statutory promises into reality.

CONCLUSION

The shift from the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is a landmark moment in India’s criminal law history; the BNS seeks to discard the colonial legacy, redefine what constitutes a crime in the society, and update police practices in the context of technological advances, the expectations of human rights, and norms of respect for individuals. The BNS has the potential to create a criminal justice system, which is transparent, accountable, and fair to both victims and the accused.

Yet, we cannot achieve real reform as a consequence of legislative change alone.  The implementation of the BNS will depend on the institutional will of the police, training professionals adequately, funding infrastructure, and a vigilant judiciary. Police oversight must move beyond mere rhetoric, ensuring every investigation upholds the rule of law and individuals’ dignity.

In the final analysis, the impact of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita will be measured, not by how many provisions were changed, or how many principles apply, but by how it actualizes the constitutional promise of justice “of the people, by the law, for the citizen.”

REFERENCES

1. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023).
2. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
3. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
4. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
5. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416.
6. Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260.
7. Ministry of Home Affairs, “Press Note on New Criminal Laws,” 2023.
8. Law Commission of India, 277th Report on Criminal Law Reforms, 2021.