At an event organized by an RSS-linked lawyers’ body, Delhi High Court Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma praised the new criminal laws for embodying “Indian values.” She highlighted that the laws reflect the Hindu principle of pashchattap (repentance). Justice Sharma, who previously denied bail to Kejriwal and Sisodia in the Delhi excise policy case, emphasized the significance of these cultural elements in the legal framework.
New Delhi: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court remarked that the three newly introduced criminal laws, created by Indians for Indians, aim to shift the legal system’s focus from punishment to justice.
She highlighted that these laws embody Hindu principles of repentance (pashchattap), emphasizing rehabilitative justice and integrating indigenous values into India’s legal framework. Justice Sharma made these comments during a lecture organized by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, a lawyers’ association affiliated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.
Supporting the government’s rationale for these new laws, Justice Sharma noted that the existing legal frameworks, such as the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), and the Indian Evidence Act, were legacies of British colonialism and did not fully reflect India’s cultural and social context. Similar sentiments were echoed by Professor Ritu Gupta of National Law University, Delhi, and lawyer Shiraz Qureshi, who also spoke at the event.
Justice Sharma previously gained attention for rejecting the bail pleas of several high-profile politicians involved in the Delhi excise policy case, including Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and Sanjay Singh of the Aam Aadmi Party, as well as K. Kavitha of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi. Additionally, she stayed the conviction of BJP leader and former Union minister Dilip Ray in a coal scam case shortly before the Lok Sabha elections, enabling him to contest the polls.
During the lecture, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma commended the new laws for aligning more closely with Indian values. She highlighted that the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), for example, incorporates community service as a form of punishment for minor offenses, reflecting the Hindu principle of “pashchattap” a concept of repentance and rehabilitative justice.
Emphasizing that treating chain-snatching merely as theft was not ideal. She explained that this categorization was a compromise due to the absence of a law specifically addressing such crimes, she noted,
“There was no mention of a crime like chain-snatching in the IPC,”
Justice Sharma shared her experience with cases that could have been better resolved through mediation rather than punishment, such as minor disputes between siblings.
Read Also: “New criminal laws mockery of Constitution”: Journalist Teesta Setalvad
She also recalled a case where she imposed social service as a bail condition, despite criticism, since the law at the time did not explicitly permit it as a form of punishment. She believed it was effective but acknowledged that the order might have been overturned if challenged.
Reflecting on a specific case, she said,
“I was thinking to myself, that this person who is 19 years of age, if I send him to jail and he is inside the jail with hardened criminals, am I doing justice? By sending him to jail, I was penalizing him, not delivering justice.”
She added,
“Today, as a judge, I feel empowered, because the focus of the Nyaya Sanhita is nyaya (justice), not penalization.”
Justice Sharma also highlighted that Section 4(f) of the BNS now introduces community service as a penalty for minor crimes, such as theft under Rs 5,000.