K.V. Seetharamaiah
The new criminal laws – The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) replacing 163-year old Indian Penal Code, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) replacing 126-year old Criminal Procedure Code and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) replacing 151-year old Indian Evidence Act have evoked mixed opinion from among the experts. Legal fraternity feels that the old laws have to be continued for 20 years. This is ridiculous suggestion. Nobody can predict what happens in one or two years. Suggestion for introduction of the new laws after 20 years is like asking for not implementing the new laws. As is the wont, Opposition parties have been unanimously and unitedly opposing the laws. Opinion in favour of new laws by the ruling parties and opinion against the new laws by the opposition parties can be brushed aside for a moment. The opposition parties do not want the implementation of the new laws not based on their merits or demerits. But they are opposed by the opposition parties for the reason that it was discussed in their absence in Parliament during the previous Lok Sabha. If they can admit that it was discussed in the previous Lok Sabha, their absence for no good reasons during the debate and discussion at that point of time is no excuse.
Nobody had prevented them from taking part in discussions and debates. They should have taken the issue seriously to take part in the discussions and debates. That cannot be the valid reason for non-implementation of the new laws.
The previous Lok Sabha Members had as much the same value as the present Lok Sabha Members. The apprehension that a smooth roll-out of the new codes may not be possible is baseless. Earlier, every small transaction took place through cash payments only. Payment through cheques was only cashless transaction. People have now accustomed to G-pay, phone pe, credit and debit cards, digital wallets, bank transfers, mobile payments, buy now pay later, cryptocurrency, prepaid cards etc. Even a street vendor makes use of payments through mobile. The custodians of laws are not illiterates. They are highly qualified persons and capable of understanding and implementing the laws. Implementation of the new laws gradually comes into practice. Therefore the implementation of new laws may not face any kind of impediments unless the opposition parties thwart the bid to implement them. Piloting the Bills in Parliament, Union Home Minister Amit Shah had rightly said “These laws are made by Indians, for Indians and by an Indian Parliament and marks the end of colonial criminal justice laws”. With the new laws coming into force from July 1, 2024 the British era laws are bid adieu. The opposition parties had stood fairly good chance to participate in the discussions and also to suggest for adding to or deleting any clause from the draft Bill. Now there is no point in crying over the spilt milk. It has been claimed that the new codes have several firsts. They, inter alia, include community service as punishment for petty offences and the use of electronic and digital records as evidence has gained ground. Summons can be issued through electronic mode and the videography of crime scenes is mandatory. “Terrorism” has been redefined in the new codes, sedition law has been repealed and in its place a new section titled “offences against the state” has been introduced. BNS lists offences such as acts of succession, armed rebellion, subversive activities, separatist activities or endangering the sovereignty or unity in the new avatar of the sedition law. Another important aspect of the new laws is that the judgment in criminal cases will have to come within 45 days of the completion of trial and charges must be framed within 60 days of the first hearing. Much relief cannot be obtained by just making it mandatory to deliver the judgments within 45 days of completion of trial. It is but necessary. Apart from it, the hearing date should not leave yawning gap between one date of hearing to another. What is the use if the case is heard for 30-40 years and judgment is given within 45 days after last hearing? Most of the cases come to end with the death of one or both the litigant parties. Same advocate cannot be expected to handle the case till its end considering the delay involved in the disposal of the cases. Delayed delivery of justice is the bane of litigant public. It is easier to frame the laws. But most of the laws are being honoured more in breach than in observance. When enquiries are conducted, enquiry reports are not submitted within a stipulated time inspite of written instructions to that effect. Proper and implementable laws have to be framed. A law that cannot be implemented should have no place.
At the same time politically motivated opposition to laws should also have no place. No law can be framed to the advantage of a ruling party, because today’s ruling party may be tomorrow’s opposition party.