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

Source– The post is based on the article “Is there a need to replace the IPC, the CrPC and the Evidence Act?” published in “The Hindu” on 18th August 2023.

Syllabus: GS2- Polity.

Relevance: Important BIlls and Acts

News– Recently, three Bills were introduced in the Lok Sabha- the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill to replace the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Bill to replace the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Bharatiya Sakshya Bill to replace the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Why is there a need for change in criminal laws?

Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Indian Evidence Act were fully utilised in the criminal justice system. But, they did not reflect the changing values and the democratic aspirations of the people.

The entire socio-economic scenario and political system ever since the IPC was enacted in 1860 have changed.

In the IPC, 175 sections have been amended, eight new sections have been added and 22 sections have been repealed to generate the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill.

What are issues with the Bill?

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Bill– There are issues in the bill regarding the time duration to keep someone in detention without being charged.

Earlier the detention time in India was 60 days. The new Bill proposes 90 days.

The new CrPC also seems to give a lot of discretionary powers to the police, like the ‘right to handcuff’.

There is to arrest women after sunset in exceptional circumstances, and to use any force and means necessary when arresting a person. That could legitimise encounters and all kinds of violence.

As per Supreme Courtin the D.K. Basu vs State of West Bengal (1996) case, people should not be handcuffed.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill– There is substantial alteration in the numbering of several critical sections. For instance, Section 302 of the IPC is set to become Section 101, and Section 420 will be renumbered as Section 316.

These sections have been deeply ingrained in the public consciousness for the past 164 years of the IPC’s existence.

The modification in these numerical designations will lead to significant challenges in maintaining accurate documentation within the National Crime Records Bureau and the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems.

A separate chapter is dedicated to sexual offenses. But, it is limited to those committed against women. The government seems to have overlooked sexual offenses involving men against men or women against women.

What are some significant provisions of the Bills?

Instances of violence and detentions without charges persist as before. The Bills endorse, legitimize, and formalize these practices.

Key sections have been reorganized, resulting in increased ambiguity and confusion. For instance, the Bill replaces sedition with the term subversive activities. It introduces significant vagueness.

The new Bills provide their own definitions of terrorist acts, despite the presence of specialized legislation such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

Furthermore, causing damage to property is now included within the scope of a terrorist act. Another section addresses the provocation and intimidation of the government. Practically anything could be perceived as provocation and classified as a terrorist act.

Mob lynching is now classified as an offense. More stringent penalties have been suggested for crimes against women.

The concept of Love Jihad, defined as ‘concealing one’s identity before marriage’ in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill, has been established as a separate offense.