Published On: October 7th 2025
Authored By: Palla Navanya
SASTRA DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY
ABSTRACT:
The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) is a major legislative revamp of India’s criminal justice system in place of the colonial Indian Penal Code and related procedural laws. This article critically analyses the BNS effect on police and procedural reforms, viewing its provisions against long-standing issues of police accountability, procedural delay, and safeguarding accused rights. The article contrasts the former legal regime with the new code, identifies practical implications, and assesses its conformity with constitutional directives and judicial rulings. The analysis finds its conclusion in suggesting effective implementation and additional reforms aimed at realizing the BNS’s potential for transformation.
INTRODUCTION:
The coming into force of the “Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)”, represents a momentous and revolutionary turning point in the development of India’s criminal justice system. This codes-based law supplants three pillar laws the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860, the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) of 1973, and the Police Act of 1861all of which reflect[1] India’s colonial history. Though these laws have been the cornerstone of Indian criminal jurisprudence for well over a century, they have also been strongly criticized on the ground that they have not kept up with modern legal, social, and human rights norms. The codes of the colonial period have frequently been associated with the encouragement of police abuse, arbitrary detention, custodial violence, and inordinate procedural delays. These systemic failures have eroded public confidence in the police and the justice system, entrenching injustices, especially among marginalized and vulnerable communities.
Attuned to the imperative to transform, the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita attempts to indigenize and update India’s penal system, harmonizing it with constitutional protections, judicial dicta, and international human rights standards. By bringing substantive criminal law and procedural enactments into a single, cohesive body of law, the BNS seeks to simplify criminal procedures, improve police accountability, safeguard the rights of both victims and suspects, and facilitate speedy and just administration of justice. The legislative reform is a testament to India’s determination to overcome colonial heritages towards an open, efficient, and humane criminal justice system.
This paper critically analyses the most important provisions of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, specifically its implications on police reforms and procedural protections. By comparative analysis of the pre-existing legal regime and the new code, it discusses how the BNS tries to meet the long-standing challenges of custodial abuses, abuse of police powers, and judicial delays. Additionally, it evaluates how far the new legislation strikes a balance between the demands of law enforcement and safeguarding individual freedoms, thus recasting the state-citizen relationship within the context of the criminal justice system.
OBJECTIVES:
The BNS was enacted to render criminal law more people-friendly, effective, and in tune with India’s constitutional ethos[2]. The Statement of Objects and Reasons lays strong stress upon an approach that is people-focused and incorporates international human rights norms and best practices.
In contrast to the scattered and outdated legal framework of the previous era, the BNS brings together substantive and procedural laws into one code with the intention of limiting confusion and increasing clarity for all concerned—police officers, judiciary, accused, and victims. It makes a firm commitment to protecting the rights of all concerned and ensuring speedy and impartial trials.
Comparison Between the Old Framework and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023[3]
|
Aspect |
Pre-BNS (IPC, CrPC, Police Act) |
Post-BNS, 2023 |
|
Police Powers |
Police had broad discretionary powers, often leading to misuse and custodial abuses. Police Act of 1861 lacked citizen-centric orientation. |
Clear limits on arrest and investigation powers; mandatory documentation of arrest reasons; enhanced accountability mechanisms. |
|
Procedural Safeguards |
Delays common in filing charge sheets, trial pendency, minimal victim protection, limited use of technology. |
Time-bound investigation and trial procedures; victim-centric provisions; adoption of electronic records, video evidence, and e-filing. |
|
Police Accountability |
Police complaint authorities existed but with limited powers and effectiveness. |
Independent and empowered police complaint authorities with real investigative and punitive powers. |
|
Language and Accessibility |
Archaic and complex legal language, difficult for common citizens to understand. |
Modern, clear, and accessible language to improve understanding and compliance[4]. |
|
Victim Rights |
Limited focus on victim protection and compensation. |
Enhanced victim rights, including witness protection, victim compensation, and participation in proceedings. |
|
Alternative Dispute Resolution |
ADR existed but limited in criminal cases. |
Formal incorporation of ADR for minor offences to reduce case backlog. |
KEY PROVISIONS IMPACT POLICE REFORMS:
1.COMPULSORY RECORDING OF GROUNDS FOR RECORDING: – Section 35(1) of BNSS requires a police officer, while arresting an individual without a warrant, to state the special grounds for arrest in writing including prevention of further offences, ensuring investigation, maintaining evidence, to avoid inducement of witnesses, or ensuring appearance in court of the accused. If the officer refuses to arrest where there are grounds, then the reasons should also be recorded. This formalizes the precautions known in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) against arbitrary detention. Judicial application is already apparent; for example, the Kerala High Court held that an arrest is unlawful if grounds are not conveyed to the accused as mandated under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 BNSS.
2.STRICT TIMELINES FOR INVESTIGATION AND COURT PRODUCTION: – Sections 57 & 167 BNSS imposes stricter timelines, demanding that an arrested individual be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours. Section 167 lays down maximum permissible periods of custody during investigation, so that detention without trial is strongly controlled. Delays have real-world implications in one instance, the Telangana High Court quashed a remand order where the accused was produced 80 minutes late, highlighting the role of the judiciary in[5] imposing these limits. This reform brings the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 into force.
3.VIDEOGRAPHY OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE: – Section 2 BNSS legally incorporates technology in procedural law by acknowledging the deployment of audio–video electronic means at different phases such as arrest, search, seizure, and interrogation. It establishes the legal basis for compulsory videography of such operations that serve as a check against evidence manipulation and custodial violence. States have initiated implementation through devices such as body-worn cameras and platforms such as e-Sashay, facilitating transparency and public confidence.
4.WOMEN AND VULNERABLE GROUPS SPECIAL PROVISIONS: – Section 183(6)(a) BNSS and Related Safeguards mandates the victim’s statement to be recorded by a female Judicial Magistrate for ensuring dignity and sensitivity in gathering evidence. Arrest of a woman is normally limited to daylight and must be performed by a woman police officer, other than in exceptional circumstances with advance Magistrate approval. Similar protection is available to children, individuals with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups and is advised in investigative practices to install inclusiveness.
Together, these provisions mark a structural shift from a discretionary and frequently secretive policing regime to one based on transparency, accountability, and protection of rights. Through the enactment of precise safeguards and timelines, the BNSS joined by the BNS marks a firm move towards a more humane and constitutionally responsive criminal justice system.
PROCEDURAL REFORMS AND JUDICIAL CONTROL:
1.TIME-BOUND INVESTIGATION AND TRIAL: – The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) lays down rigid time limits for investigation and disposal of cases, specifically to address the earlier mentioned chronic delays under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. For example, Section 258(2) lays down time limits for finalization of investigations in some categories of offences, and Section 350 directs that trials be conducted expeditiously with minimal adjournments. Courts have stressed adherence to such timelines, as in Tushar Goyal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (30 April 2025), where delay was examined to uphold the accused’s Article 21 right to a speedy trial. Failure to comply may attract negative judicial orders, such as quashing of proceedings.
2.INCREASED MAGISTRATE POWERS AND CONTROL: – The BNS increases the proactive role of Magistrates in monitoring investigations. Sections 193–196 give Magistrates the authority to order status reports, call investigating officers, and institute corrective steps to avoid abuse of process. This adds heft to judicial oversight as a guarantee against coercive methods, illegal detention, or investigatory prejudice. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Tushar Goyal reaffirmed that Magistrates are “not passive recipients of police reports but active protectors of procedural fairness.”
3.PLEA BARGAIN AND COMPOUNDING OF OFFENCES: – Building on provisions previously brought in Chapter XXIA of the CrPC, the BNS codifies plea bargaining under Sections 298–300 and expands compounding under Section 359. This allows for settled settlements in certain offences, easing court backlogs and encouraging restorative justice. The Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Natwar Harchandji Thakor (2005)[6] acknowledged plea bargaining as “a pragmatic tool” for resolution, on a voluntary and open basis.
4.DIGITALISATION OF COURT RECORDS AND SERVICE OF SUMMONS: – The BNS incorporates technology reform by requiring electronic record-keeping, e-filing of court cases, and service of summons electronically (Sections 530–534). These reforms seek to enhance efficiency, accessibility, and transparency and check procedural manipulation[7]. Pilot projects, like the Delhi High Court’s e-filing facility, demonstrate lower case-processing times, but achieving uniform take-up across jurisdictions with different infrastructure continues to pose a challenge.
ANALYTICAL NOTE:
Though such provisions represent a significant turn toward efficiency and transparency, effective implementation will wait upon infrastructural preparedness, enhancing the capacity of judicial officers and personnel, and strong protections to make sure that accelerated processes do not imperil substantive justice.
CHALLENGES AND CRITIQUE:
In spite of its forward-looking thinking, the BNS has challenges:
1.INDEPENDENCE OF INVESTIGATIONS: – Although the BNS brings in checks and balances, its critics say that it does not go far enough in creating independent investigation agencies that are vital to avoid political or executive meddling.
2.IMPLEMENTATION GAPS: – The effectiveness of procedural safeguards also rests crucially on ground-level enforcement. The Allahabad High Court’s order in Subhash Chandra and 6 Others v State of U.P. and Another (Allahabad High Court, 12 May 2025)[8] pointed to lapses in the enforcement of arrest safeguards in the face of even existing legislation.
3.CLARITY ON BAIL AND PREVENTIVE DETENTION: – Provisions under the BNS on bail and preventive detention need clarity to harmonize individual freedom and public security, consistent with Supreme Court precedents on Article 21.
4.POLICE TRAINING AND RESOURCES:- Substantive reform requires thorough police training in human rights and community policing, as well as infrastructural investments a problem for most states.
CONCLUSION:
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, substitutes piecemeal colonial-era criminal codes with a coherent, rights-based code that enhances police accountability, ensures procedural protections, incorporates technology, and improves victim security. By adding time-bound investigations, judicial oversight, and inclusive provisions for vulnerable groups, it aims to balance law enforcement powers with constitutional assurances and standards of human rights. But its potential to transform will be contingent upon the resolution of challenges of autonomous investigations, on-the-ground implementation, bail and preventive detention clarity, and proper training and equipment of police without which its reforms will remain utopian, not functional.
REFERENCES:
[1] DD News Desk, New criminal laws come into effect: IPC, CrPC, Indian Evidence Act will be replaced from today, DD News (11 Aug. 2025, 6:45 PM), https://ddnews.gov.in/en/new-criminal-laws-come-into-effect-ipc-crpc-indian-evidence-act-will-be-replaced-from-today.
[2] Yeshwant Naik, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS): A Critical Examination of India’s New Penal Code, (SSRN eJournal, Paper No. 4884622) 6 p., SSRN (2024), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4884622.
[3]Pitabas Mohanty, Beyond Human Bias: An LLM-Driven Comparative Analysis of the Indian Penal Code (1860) and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (2023), 46 Stat. L. Rev. (U.K.) (2025), https://academic.oup.com/slr/article/doi/10.1093/slr/hmaf014/8122722.
[4]Cerkl, Compliance Communication in the Modern Workplace, https://cerkl.com/blog/compliance-communication (Aug 11, 2025).
[5] Rahul V. Pisharody, “Magistrates Must Not Authorise Detention Mechanically: Telangana HC Sets Aside Man’s Judicial Remand Over 24-Hour Norm”, Indian Express,(2025), https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/hyderabad/telangana-hc-judicial-remand-norm-10172489.
[6] State of Gujarat and Anr v. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, AIR 1998 SC 3164, 1998 (7) SCC 392
[7] Administrative Conference of the United States, ACUS Adopts Four Recommendations to Improve Efficiency, Fairness, Transparency, and Public Participation, https://www.acus.gov/article/acus-adopts-four-recommendations-improve-efficiency-fairness-transparency-and-public (last visited Aug. 11, 2025).
[8] Subhash Chandra and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another, 2025:AHC:8193
