India has recently undertaken a significant overhaul of its colonial-era criminal laws, a move hailed by the country’s top judge as a “watershed” moment but criticized by some as potentially exacerbating the slow pace of justice. The three revamped laws—the penal code, the code of criminal procedure, and the evidence act—were passed last year and came into effect on Monday, signaling a major shift in the nation’s legal landscape.
Interior Minister Amit Shah lauded the new codes, stating that they would help India “become the world’s most modern justice delivery system.” Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud echoed this sentiment, emphasizing the transformative potential of these changes for Indian society.
One of the most notable changes is the extension of the time police can hold a suspect without charge, from 15 days to 60 days, and in some special cases, up to 90 days. Previously, it was up to a judge to decide if a case could proceed to trial, but the new laws enhance police powers, allowing them to make this decision. This shift has raised concerns among legal experts, such as Supreme Court lawyer Nipun Saxena, who argued that “judicial functions cannot be transferred to police.” He emphasized the potential risks of undermining judicial oversight and the protection of suspects’ rights.
The overhaul also includes modernized provisions, such as mandatory video recordings at the scene of serious crimes and updated rules for admissible digital evidence. These changes aim to align India’s criminal justice system with contemporary technological advancements and improve the accuracy and integrity of evidence presented in court.
However, critics argue that the implementation of these new laws could create confusion, as they will run parallel to cases already charged under the previous legal system. India’s judicial system is notoriously slow, with millions of cases pending at any given time. Saxena warned that the new laws could increase the number of cases awaiting trial by “30-40%,” further straining an already overburdened judiciary.
Moreover, opposition parties have voiced concerns about the manner in which the laws were passed. More than 100 lawmakers were suspended from the house during the passage of these laws, meaning that key issues were not fully debated. Saxena pointed out that “many crucial safeguards have been omitted completely,” and claimed that the new laws violate “at least four articles of the constitution and many important judgments of the Supreme Court.” These concerns relate to procedural safeguards, protection against illegal detention, and laws against self-incrimination.
While the overhaul aims to decolonize the criminal procedure code, Saxena dismissed this claim as “spurious.” He noted that the changes may not adequately address the deep-rooted issues within the legal system that have persisted since British colonial rule.
The first person charged under the new codes was a street vendor blocking a footbridge in New Delhi, highlighting the immediate application of the revised laws. This case serves as a microcosm of the broader implications and potential challenges of the legal overhaul.
India’s legal system, inherited from British colonial rule at independence in 1947, has seen several amendments over the decades. However, this latest overhaul represents one of the most comprehensive attempts to modernize the framework governing criminal justice in the country. The changes have sparked a wide range of reactions, from optimism about the potential for a more efficient and just system to concerns about the erosion of judicial oversight and procedural protections.
As India moves forward with these new laws, the balance between enhancing efficiency and safeguarding individual rights will be critical. The impact of these changes on the speed and fairness of the justice system will need to be closely monitored, and any unintended consequences must be addressed to ensure that the reforms truly benefit the citizens they are meant to serve.
