The three new criminal laws, which replaced the British-era penal statutes on Monday, have evoked mixed reactions from legal luminaries with some hailing them as “significant step” towards modernising criminal justice system while others terming them as “draconian” and “cosmetic”. The new laws -- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) -- came into effect across the country from July 1 and replaced the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act respectively. Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi said an opportunity to make genuine reforms has been wasted and “cosmetic changes” have been brought about in new laws, disregarding the crucial aspect of huge pendency of cases in courts, especially in trial courts. However, senior advocate and former Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Adish C Aggarwala termed the new criminal laws as significant step towards modernising the criminal justice delivery system and delivery of time-bound justice.

 

This view was echoed by senior advocates Mahesh Jethmalani, also a BJP MP, and Vikas Pahwa. Advocate and Congress MP Manish Tewari termed the new laws “pernicious in nature, draconian in their implementation”. Activist lawyer Kamini Jaiswal concurred with Tewari and termed them as “disaster”. Significantly, the apex lawyers’ body, the Bar Council of India (BCI), came in support of the laws and recently urged all bar associations across the country to refrain from any immediate agitation or protest against the implementation of the new criminal laws. “One of the important changes brought in by the new laws is the introduction of specific timelines for conducting trials and delivering verdicts,” former SCBA President Aggarwala said and hailed Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah for decolonising British-era criminal laws. He said, after hearing arguments, the judges will have to render judgment within 30 days from the date of completion of arguments, which may be extended to a period of 45 days for reasons to be recorded in writing.

 

Jethmalani said the opposition parties do not understand that these laws are for everyone, for prosecution, for victims and for criminals. “I don’t understand which provision is the problem. They are just saying anything and have not analysed the provisions,” he said. Pahwa said, “I think there are a lot of positive points if we read them as a whole. Of course there’s also a flip side. The biggest positive point would be the implementation of technology. The entire criminal justice system will now be governed by technology.” He said the trials will get expedited if the laws are followed in right spirit. “This is an opportunity to create genuine reform. Unfortunately, what has happened is cosmetic changes, 90 per cent remaining the same, numbers changed, a few words changed here and there…,” Singhvi said. He said one other thing which has been forgotten completely is that the judges are fighting with arrears. “Our lower courts have about three-and-a-half crore or four crores of arrears, our High Courts have 60 odd lakhs of arrears, the Supreme Court has about 75,000-80,000 arrears,” he said. Singhvi said, “When you tinker with the law by one comma, full-stop, it gives an opportunity to a clever prosecution lawyer or a clever defence lawyer to say, all the 100 years and 200 years of case law on that provision has been changed by the change of a comma, full-stop.”