WHILE much of the attention of the country was on the suspension of the Members of Parliament belonging to the Opposition parties over their unruly behaviour, and the protests outside, three Bills to replace the British-era laws were passed in the Lok Sabha. Irrespective of the political reactions this step might evoke, and subsequent evolution with passage of time, these Bills marks the dawn of a new era in the criminal law administration and justice system of the country. The Bharatiya Nyaya (Second) Sanhita will replace the Indian Penal Code, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha (Second) Sanhita will replace the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Bharatiya Sakshya (Second) Sanhita will replace the Indian Evidence Act. Though many may try to pick politically motivated points as to what purpose will be served by replacing the words ‘Indian’ with ‘Bharatiya’ and English words in the title of the laws with words in the Indian languages, passage of these Bills has a larger implication than that. Of course, ‘Bharatiya’ gels well with the cultural change that has been sweeping the country for past few years, and will definitely evoke a sense of pride about everything rooted in ‘Bharatiya’ values. As far as larger implications are concerned, one has to go through the texts of these three Bills. Mr. Amit Shah, Union Home Minister, in his speech in the Lok Sabha offered a glimpse of the changes that are being brought about in the Indian prosecution system. He gave some clarity when he said that the British-era criminal laws were reflective of the colonial mindset with the intention to ‘punish’ and not to impart ‘justice’.

 

This is the most crucial aspect of the change. When the British rulers enacted the criminal laws, their intention was to have a firm grip over the state of affairs and crush dissent in any form. Hence, the provisions in the laws they made were of punitive nature. However, as has been widely acknowledged, mere punishment does not amount to justice. Justice is a much wider concept, requiring a harmonious response from the investigating machinery to judiciary through different phases. The three new Bills passed in the Lok Sabha aim at that harmony. Besides, the exercise appears to be aimed at having laws that serve the purpose qualitatively than quantitatively. Hence, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita has provisions defining terrorist act in all its hues. It scraps sedition as a crime, for it referred to offences against the ‘imperial’ masters of British era. Several decades have passed since the end of the colonial rule over India, and this called for the change. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita has brought about that much-awaited change by way of replacing sedition with ‘offences against the State’, with State meaning the country. Notably, there has been a demand for scrapping the provision of sedition, from various quarters including the Opposition parties and activists.

 

The new provision regarding terrorist act also covers organising camps for imparting training in terrorist act, recruitment, intent to threaten or likelihood of threatening the unity, integrity, sovereignty, security, or economic security of India. This gives common man a feeling that this is being done to ensure safety of the country and its law-abiding citizens. Some things have been done with a brilliant foresight. For example, those accused in terrorist acts often flee to another country and hide there. The new Bill has provision for trial of such persons in absentia. If found guilty, they will be punished. This will change their status in the country they have fled to, and this may pave way for expediting the process to bring them back to India. There are several such provisions in the new Bills. There are provisions defining the time-limit for plea bargaining to expedite the further process, 90-day limit on police informing the victim of a crime about progress of investigation, fixing responsibility of police, introduction of the option of community service instead of imprisonment in certain cases and so on. Setting time-limit is one of the most crucial aspects, as this is the first step towards making the investigating machinery also accountable. Further, there is an element of modern practice too reflected in making collection of forensic evidence mandatory, allowing citizens to file FIR from anywhere and subsequent handing over to jurisdictional police station, witness protection programme, increasing the number of offences in which property of the fugitives could be seized etc.

 

All these, if implemented effectively by the agencies concerned, will have a positive effect on expediting prosecution in the country and will rid the financially weaker sections of what is described as ‘tareekh pe tareekh’. The objective of the new Bills appears to be forming a closely linked accountability triangle involving police, judiciary, and Government. This way, all three will push each other to cut the delay in the process. This may lead to speedy trials ultimately reducing the burden of pending cases. Also, it will create an atmosphere when performance will hold the key in each of the three segments mentioned above. Of course, it will have to be seen how much the common people gain out of these changes. But, a positive possibility has been unlocked with the welcome passage of the Bills. So, whatever some people might say, the new Bills are to be looked at from an apolitical perspective. Since laws once made continue to be in operation and enforcement irrespective of political dispensation in power, one hopes that the enforcers stick to the good intentions behind the new Bills, and the subsequent interpretation of legal provisions also aids the purpose of larger good.