The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs has recently made pivotal recommendations regarding the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Bill (BNSS Bill, 2023), focusing on two critical aspects: the modalities of online FIR registration and the contentious issue of extending police custody beyond the initial remand period.
Also read- Parliamentary Committee Proposes Key Amendments In New Criminal Law Bill (lawchakra.in)
The committee, while examining Section 173 of the BNSS Bill, which allows for electronic submission of information for cognizable offenses, noted,
“Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offense, irrespective of the area where the offense is committed may be given orally or by electronic communication.”
This provision aims to facilitate the reporting of crimes without jurisdictional limitations. However, the committee suggested an amendment for better regulation, stating,
“There is a need to insert the words ‘as specified by rules’ after ‘electronic communication’ to grant the government the authority to prescribe specific modalities for electronic FIR registration.”
Additionally, the committee addressed the need for clarity in providing information to both the informant and the victim. In the current wording of Clause 173(2), which mandates that a copy of the information recorded be given immediately and free of cost to the informant or the victim, the committee recommended adding ‘or both, as the case may be.’ This amendment would ensure that in cases where the informant and victim are different individuals, both parties receive the necessary information.
This concern aligns with the Supreme Court’s interpretations in cases like CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni and V. Senthil Balaji v. State. In the latter, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 167(2) to allow an aggregate of shorter periods of custody over the entire investigation period, contrary to the Anupam J. Kulkarni interpretation. A two-judge bench of Justice AS Bopanna and MM Sundresh observed,
“this period of 15 days has to be reckoned, qua either a police custody or a custody in favor of the investigating officer, spanning over the entire period of investigation…The period of 15 days being the maximum period would span from time to time with a total period of 60 or 90 days as the case may be. Any other interpretation would seriously impair the power of investigation.”
In addition to these major concerns, the Committee made several other recommendations. It proposed empowering Magistrates to impose community service as punishment and suggested excluding ‘economic offenses’ from mandatory handcuffing. The Committee also advocated for inbuilt safeguards in the investigation process, such as requiring an affidavit and additional inquiry before a magistrate orders an investigation.
The Committee’s recommendations have been met with dissenting voices, particularly from opposition leaders like Adhir Ranjan Choudhary. He expressed disapproval of certain provisions within the BNSS, especially those related to arrest procedures and police custody. Choudhary argued that the use of handcuffs is an affront to human dignity and a violation of Article 21, emphasizing that such measures reflect a colonial-era mindset of punitive state control rather than prioritizing citizen welfare.
These recommendations and discussions underscore the ongoing efforts to modernize India’s criminal justice system. They highlight the delicate balance between effective law enforcement and the protection of individual rights, reflecting the complexities of legal reform in a rapidly evolving societal and technological landscape.
