Is there a need to replace the IPC, the CrPC and the Evidence Act

Editorial of the Day: Is there a need to replace the IPC, the CrPC and the Evidence Act? (The Hindu)

The article is discussing the introduction of three Bills by the Union Home Minister in the Lok Sabha recently- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill that aims to replace the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860

Context: The article is discussing the introduction of three Bills by the Union Home Minister in the Lok Sabha recently- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill that aims to replace the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Bill that intends to replace the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) of 1973 and the Bharatiya Sakshya Bill that seeks to replace the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. The introduction of these Bills has sparked a debate and raised questions about the reasons behind replacing these longstanding laws. The article suggests that there may be concerns about the potential misuse of the existing laws, leading to the decision to amend and replace them. The Bills aim to modernize and update the legal framework in India by introducing new legislation.

Decoding the Editorial

The article includes a conversation between experts on whether the existing laws are in need of replacement and delves into the potential amendments made in the new Bills. The discussion likely covers various perspectives on the necessity of updating these laws and the implications of doing so.

Differences between the New Bills:

The experts in the conversation are discussing the differences between the new Bills. They highlight various aspects of the new Bills and compare them to the current legal framework:

Change to Reflect Societal Changes: While the existing laws were operational, they may not fully reflect the changing values and democratic aspirations of the people. Given the significant changes in socio-economic and political scenarios since the enactment of these laws, there is a need for them to be updated to better align with the current context.
Amendments and Repeals: The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill, which aims to replace the IPC, involves significant changes. It amends 175 sections, adds eight new sections, and repeals 22 sections from the IPC. This suggests a substantial revision to criminal law in India.
Detention and Custody Periods: There are concerns about the increased detention period proposed in the new Bills. For instance, the new CrPC proposes extending the period of detention without charges from the current 60 days to 90 days, which raises questions about the balance between safeguarding individual rights and law enforcement needs.
Discretionary Powers and Use of Force: The new CrPC seems to grant additional discretionary powers to the police, such as the authority to handcuff, arrest women after sunset in exceptional circumstances, and use force during arrests. This is seen as potentially legitimizing encounters and excessive use of force.
Public Feedback and Debate: The experts emphasise the importance of allowing public input and debate on the proposed Bills, suggesting that rushing their implementation may not be ideal.
Handcuffing Debate: The discussion highlights the contentious issue of handcuffing, about the practical concerns that should also be considered, especially when dealing with potentially dangerous individuals.
Repeal and Rupture: The new Bills represent a significant departure from existing laws, going beyond mere amendments to enact a full repeal and revocation of certain provisions. This drastic change could disrupt established legal principles and case laws.

Similarities and differences between the existing laws:

Similarities:

Continuation of Violence and Detention Without Charges: The article points out that violence and detention without charges are still ongoing practices, and the new Bills seem to endorse, legitimize, and formalize these practices. This suggests a continuity rather than a substantial departure from existing laws.
Ambiguity and Broadness in Language: The new Bills have introduced changes that create ambiguity and confusion. For example, the replacement of “sedition” with “subversive activities” in the new Bills makes the offense vague and broad. The definition of “terrorist acts” has been added, potentially overlapping with existing laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
Vague Provisions: The new Bills introduced provisions that could be interpreted broadly, such as those related to provocation and intimidation of the government. These vague provisions raise concerns about potential misuse.

Differences:

New Definitions and Offences: The new Bills introduce changes such as defining terrorism, adding organized crime as an offence, and repealing sedition while introducing “subversive activities.” The Bills also address issues like mob lynching and propose stricter punishment for crimes against women.
Reorganisation and Renumbering of Sections: Certain sections in the IPC are being renumbered in the new Bills, causing potential documentation and tracking challenges.
Gendered Language and Offences: The new Bills introduce gendered language and offences. For instance, the new rape provisions are gender-specific and apply only to women. Sexual offences against men or perpetrated by women on men or women are not adequately addressed.
Recognition of Contemporary Issues: The new Bills reflect issues that have arisen in recent political debates. For example, mob lynching is recognized as a separate offense, reflecting current concerns about targeted violence.

Some welcome changes in the new Bills:

Definition of Terrorism and Organized Crimes: The experts mention that attempting to define terrorism and introducing a definition for organized crimes in the new Bills is a step in the right direction. These definitions can provide more clarity and specificity to the legal framework.
Expedited Trials: The new Bills propose certain provisions to expedite the trial process. For instance, once a trial concludes, the judgement must be given within 30 days, and only two adjournments are allowed. These measures are aimed at streamlining the legal process and ensuring faster resolution of cases.
Time Limits for Petty Offences: The new Bills introduce a provision stating that if a trial for petty offences cannot be concluded within six months, the person may not be tried. This provision is seen as a positive change, although it currently applies only to petty offences.