The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 replaces colonial-era criminal procedures with digital tools like e-FIRs and e-summons, aiming to make justice quicker, transparent, and more inclusive across India.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: For years, India’s criminal justice system has been criticized for being slow, inaccessible, and often overwhelming for the common citizen. Imagine someone trying to report a cybercrime or domestic abuse, only to be turned away from a police station or get caught in a maze of paperwork and delayed court dates.
Many people, especially those from vulnerable or marginalized communities, have found it difficult to navigate the system. The laws, largely unchanged since colonial times, were simply not equipped to deal with today’s digital realities.
To address this growing mismatch, Parliament introduced the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), replacing the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). One of its most powerful promises? Integrating technology into the very heart of criminal procedure—making justice more accessible, efficient, and transparent through e-FIRs, electronic summons, and a more robust approach to digital evidence.
E-FIRs: Making the First Step Easier
Filing a First Information Report (FIR) can be an emotional and stressful experience. Under the CrPC, the law required that FIRs be registered physically at the police station. This created many hurdles, particularly for women, survivors of sexual assault, cybercrime victims, and people in remote locations.
In practice, many victims were either discouraged, ignored, or harassed when they attempted to file an FIR. Accessing justice became a test of endurance. Recognizing this, courts began to push for modernization. In Court on its Own Motion v. State, [(2014) SCC OnLine Del 7529], the Delhi High Court directed the police to set up a mechanism for registering complaints online—especially to make the process safer and easier for women.
However, without clear legal backing, these efforts lacked uniformity across states. What was possible in Delhi might be unavailable in Bihar or Mizoram. That’s where the BNSS steps in with Section 173, which formally allows the lodging of FIRs through electronic communication—email, web portal, or app—followed by a signed copy within three days.
ALSO READ: Cheque Bounce Cases: New Supreme Court Guidelines
This is more than a procedural upgrade. It means a domestic violence survivor no longer has to physically go to a police station and risk facing her abuser. A young woman being stalked online can reach out from her home, without fear of judgment or delay. E-FIRs ensure a digital paper trail and make police accountable, helping restore some trust in the system.
E-Summons: A Legal System That Keeps Up With Real Life
Serving summons—the process of legally notifying someone that they are required in court—might sound like a basic administrative step, but it’s often where justice gets delayed the most. Traditionally, summons were delivered in person or by registered post under Sections 61–69 of the CrPC. But what if the accused moved or deliberately avoided receiving the notice?
Courts often had to postpone hearings multiple times just because a summons wasn’t delivered. This backlog would snowball, causing frustration for victims and overburdening the system.
Recognizing the need to modernize, the Supreme Court in Central Electricity Regulatory Commission v. NHPC Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 280] allowed summons via email. The urgency became more apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic when courts in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation [(2020) SCC OnLine SC 343] highlighted the necessity of digital operations to ensure continuity of justice.
In response, the BNSS introduced Section 63, which now allows summons to be served via email, SMS, WhatsApp, and other electronic modes. Think about that: instead of waiting weeks for a postal service to deliver a paper notice, a witness or accused can now be informed in real time. The process becomes faster, more transparent, and much harder to evade.
More importantly, this aligns with how people live today. Most of us check our phones more often than our mailboxes. The BNSS recognizes that justice must meet people where they are—on their screens.
Digital Evidence: Screenshots, CCTV, and the New Face of Justice
In a world of social media, mobile apps, and online transactions, crimes increasingly leave behind digital footprints. From text threats to GPS data, from surveillance videos to hacked emails—digital evidence is now a central part of criminal trials. But until recently, our laws were struggling to catch up.
Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, digital records required a Section 65B certificate to be admissible in court. This meant that the person presenting the evidence had to certify how it was created and stored.
In Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer [(2014) 10 SCC 473], the Supreme Court ruled that this certificate was mandatory. Later, in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal [(2020) 7 SCC 1], the Court clarified that electronic records without such certification could be excluded—unless the original device was produced.
This led to serious hurdles. What if the evidence came from a third party—like a mobile network provider or a social media company? Victims and prosecutors often found themselves stuck, unable to obtain the required certificates, even for critical evidence.
To fix this, the government replaced the Evidence Act with the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The new law simplifies the process and updates the legal framework for the digital age. When paired with Section 337 of the BNSS, which allows video conferencing of witness statements and audiovisual recordings, the result is a legal system that is more flexible, inclusive, and attuned to today’s realities.
This is especially relevant for tech-related crimes—cyberstalking, financial fraud, or online harassment—where the bulk of evidence exists digitally. With these changes, justice becomes more fact-based and less dependent on flawed paper trails.
We can analyze the benefit of making the judiciary digital through some examples inspired by real-life instances.
Example 1 – When Sujata, a working professional in a small town, discovered her phone was stolen, she dreaded the idea of spending hours at the police station—losing a day’s work and wading through bureaucracy. Under BNSS Section 173, however, she could merely send a WhatsApp message to start the FIR.
She still needed to physically sign it within three days, but that initial step saved her precious time and energy—making justice feel within reach. For many—single mothers, senior citizens, daily wage earners—this digital option isn’t a luxury; it’s essential, sometimes the only feasible route to justice.
Example 2 – Then there’s Rajesh, a small-business owner in a remote village who received a WhatsApp “summons.” Though the BNSS allows summons via email or WhatsApp under Sections 63–64, the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2025) ruled such notices under Section 35 BNSS (formerly CrPC 41A) aren’t valid if served electronically. The notice needed personal delivery, registered post, or official courier.
But as we know, “Every coin has two sides”. Likewise, justice should not just be digital. It must be digitally inclusive—reaching not just urban citizens with internet access, but also the farmer in a village, the housemaid in a small town, and the student filing a harassment complaint from her hostel room.
Every day, countless people get caught up in scams where someone calls pretending to be a judge or a police officer. These callers use fear and urgency, telling victims there’s a serious legal problem or that they’re about to be arrested, and push them to pay money right away to “clear” the issue.
It’s heartbreaking because many end up losing their hard-earned money, not knowing it’s all a cruel trick. In today’s digital age, these kinds of scams have become even more common.
With so much of our lives online and personal information easier to find, scammers have found new ways to target people, making digital crime a growing problem that affects everyone, no matter where they live or what they do. It’s a reminder to stay cautious and protect ourselves in this fast-changing world.
Problems faced by the legal provisions dealing with digital scams
Laws that try to tackle scams and digital crimes face some pretty tough challenges. For one, technology keeps changing so fast that the rules can’t always keep up, which means scammers often find new ways to trick people before the law catches on.
It’s also really hard to catch criminals who hide behind fake names or operate from other countries—this makes it tricky for police to work together across borders. Many victims don’t even report these crimes because they feel embarrassed or don’t know where to turn, so a lot of cases never get looked into.
On top of that, not all police officers have the right training or tools to handle these complicated digital crimes. And even when cases do get reported, the legal process can be slow and frustrating, leaving victims waiting a long time for justice. All these problems make it really challenging for the laws to keep people safe from these scams.
Reforms that can be taken
To truly fight back against these kinds of scams and digital crimes, our laws need to get tougher and smarter. This means putting in place harsher punishments that send a clear message to fraudsters that their actions won’t be tolerated, and speeding up the legal process so victims get justice quickly.
Since scammers keep finding new tricks, our laws should constantly be updated to keep up with the latest technology and close any loopholes they might use. It’s also important that police, tech experts, and banks work closely together to spot and stop these criminals faster.
On the flip side, people need to be better informed too—so running awareness programs and teaching everyone how these scams work can help people avoid falling into their traps. Having special cybercrime units with the right tools and training will make a huge difference in catching the bad guys.
And because many of these criminals operate across countries, stronger teamwork between nations is essential to bring them to justice. By making these changes, we can create a stronger shield to protect people from falling prey to these cruel scams.
Conclusion
The journey from the CrPC to the BNSS is a landmark one. For the first time, Indian criminal procedure truly reflects the world we live in—interconnected, digitized, and fast-moving.
E-FIRs, electronic summons, and digital evidence are not just technical reforms; they are tools to restore dignity, speed, and fairness to the justice system.
Yes, challenges remain. But if implemented wisely, these reforms could bring us closer to a justice system that works for everyone, not just the privileged few. Because in the end, justice delayed is justice denied—but justice digitized, if done right, can be justice delivered.
AUTHOR:
Anshul Raj
Law Student in 3rd year
Assam University, Silchar.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on New Digital Laws
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
