NEW DELHI: A funny take on the 1997 film Chachi 420 encapsulated the dilemma before the legal community in Delhi when the new criminal laws kicked in on Monday. Lawyers, and some judges too, shared a meme that wondered if the Kamal Hassan starrer could sound as mischievous if titled Chachi 318 — the new section in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita that replaces the old and well-known Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
The change in sections/provisions of some key offences pose the first and most immediate challenge to the bar and the bench as they deal with cases registered under the three new criminal codes that replaced the British-era penal statutes on Monday.
Murder will now be covered by Section 103 of BNS, rape by Section 63, gangrape by Section 70(1) and attempt to murder by Section 109, to mention a few. While the old IPC had over 500 sections, BNS is slimmer with just 358 sections.
The first day of the implementation of BNS, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (the old one was Criminal Procedure Code) and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (Evidence Act) saw lawyers grapple with the shift, with many making a beeline to bookshops to pick up the bare acts of the new laws. Anticipating the change perhaps, the Bar Council of Delhi on Sunday had objected to his rollout at present and demanded more time for preparation.
Significantly, the apex lawyers’ body, the Bar Council of India, had urged all bar associations across the country to refrain from any immediate agitation or protest against the implementation of the new laws, promising to take up the issue with govt.
There were mixed reactions among lawyers. Some expressed apprehension at too much power being given to police and investigative agencies, while others said it was a first step in discarding colonial-era rules and regulations.
Senior advocate Vikas Pahwa welcomed the shift. “Overall, there are many positives in the new acts,” he said. “There may be some confusion initially, but the system will be streamlined over time. I don’t think lawyers will face any problems; they are competent and know how to handle legal issues in court.”
Pahwa, however, said police needed to be educated about the new laws and their implementation. “This extension could give police unfettered powers to extract confessions and manufacture evidence. The provision for attachment of proceeds of crime is also draconian. If identified, proceeds of crime can be attached during the investigation and trial and can be distributed to victims or appropriated by govt even before the trial concludes. This is arbitrary and problematic if the accused is acquitted post-trial,” said Pahwa.
A judge told TOI, “We are yet to get an idea of the new laws. Primarily it’s for police and magistrates to deal with the new provisions immediately. The sessions court’s turn will come after some time, when in revision or appeal new provisions are referred to.”
Calling the new timeline for trial procedures a game changer, some senior lawyers pointed out that cases would now be committed within 90 days, arguments on charges will be made within 60 days of committal and arguments of charge will be concluded within 60 days.
However, critics flagged some problem areas, the most critical being availability of infrastructure for police and the courts across the country. “The new laws fail to address the problem of high handedness of police and delays in the justice system,” noted advocate Karan Sachdeva. “Police and the justice system require a complete overhaul so that it becomes more accessible. Also, the new laws have led to massive confusion and thus will probably be followed by multiple amendments and notifications like in the case of GST.”
Similarly, advocate Sanjay Sharma said the potential hurdles were numerous, including increased litigation, confusion and inconsistencies. “The new laws are a double-edged sword, bringing both promise and peril,” said Sharma. “On one hand, they offer a much-needed overhaul of our legal framework, addressing long-standing issues and promoting progress. On the other, their implementation poses significant challenges and, if not carefully considered, may lead to unintended consequences, injustice and hardships.”
The change in sections/provisions of some key offences pose the first and most immediate challenge to the bar and the bench as they deal with cases registered under the three new criminal codes that replaced the British-era penal statutes on Monday.
Murder will now be covered by Section 103 of BNS, rape by Section 63, gangrape by Section 70(1) and attempt to murder by Section 109, to mention a few. While the old IPC had over 500 sections, BNS is slimmer with just 358 sections.
The first day of the implementation of BNS, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (the old one was Criminal Procedure Code) and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (Evidence Act) saw lawyers grapple with the shift, with many making a beeline to bookshops to pick up the bare acts of the new laws. Anticipating the change perhaps, the Bar Council of Delhi on Sunday had objected to his rollout at present and demanded more time for preparation.
Significantly, the apex lawyers’ body, the Bar Council of India, had urged all bar associations across the country to refrain from any immediate agitation or protest against the implementation of the new laws, promising to take up the issue with govt.
There were mixed reactions among lawyers. Some expressed apprehension at too much power being given to police and investigative agencies, while others said it was a first step in discarding colonial-era rules and regulations.
Senior advocate Vikas Pahwa welcomed the shift. “Overall, there are many positives in the new acts,” he said. “There may be some confusion initially, but the system will be streamlined over time. I don’t think lawyers will face any problems; they are competent and know how to handle legal issues in court.”
Pahwa, however, said police needed to be educated about the new laws and their implementation. “This extension could give police unfettered powers to extract confessions and manufacture evidence. The provision for attachment of proceeds of crime is also draconian. If identified, proceeds of crime can be attached during the investigation and trial and can be distributed to victims or appropriated by govt even before the trial concludes. This is arbitrary and problematic if the accused is acquitted post-trial,” said Pahwa.
A judge told TOI, “We are yet to get an idea of the new laws. Primarily it’s for police and magistrates to deal with the new provisions immediately. The sessions court’s turn will come after some time, when in revision or appeal new provisions are referred to.”
Calling the new timeline for trial procedures a game changer, some senior lawyers pointed out that cases would now be committed within 90 days, arguments on charges will be made within 60 days of committal and arguments of charge will be concluded within 60 days.
However, critics flagged some problem areas, the most critical being availability of infrastructure for police and the courts across the country. “The new laws fail to address the problem of high handedness of police and delays in the justice system,” noted advocate Karan Sachdeva. “Police and the justice system require a complete overhaul so that it becomes more accessible. Also, the new laws have led to massive confusion and thus will probably be followed by multiple amendments and notifications like in the case of GST.”
Similarly, advocate Sanjay Sharma said the potential hurdles were numerous, including increased litigation, confusion and inconsistencies. “The new laws are a double-edged sword, bringing both promise and peril,” said Sharma. “On one hand, they offer a much-needed overhaul of our legal framework, addressing long-standing issues and promoting progress. On the other, their implementation poses significant challenges and, if not carefully considered, may lead to unintended consequences, injustice and hardships.”
