New criminal laws, effective since July 1, present a fresh challenge for Delhi’s veteran lawyers. Despite decades of legal practice, they now face the unexpected task of learning every section anew. This change demands significant effort and adaptation.
New Delhi: For both the judiciary and the public, the crime of murder historically associated with Section 302. However, this has changed. Under the newly introduced Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which replaced the colonial-era Indian Penal Code (IPC), ‘murder’ now categorized under Section 103.
The term “Chaar sou Bees” or 420, once known for fraud or cheating under the IPC, is now designated as Section 318 of the BNS.
Read Also: Delhi Lawyers to Protest & Boycott Judicial Work on July 15 Against New Criminal Laws
Similarly, incidents of rape, previously covered under Section 375 of the IPC, are now classified under Section 63 of the BNS.
Since the implementation of these three new criminal laws on July 1, veteran lawyers in Delhi encountered a fresh and unforeseen challenge, re-learning the legal sections they known for decades.
In addition to the BNS replacing the IPC, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) has taken the place of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) supplanted the Indian Evidence Act.
Senior advocate Pramod Dubey remarked,
“All the provisions were at our fingertips,”
“Now we will have to double-check every time we prepare for an argument in court. It will take years to memorize the new sections. The government shouldn’t have changed the sections. It would have been easier to have the same numbering.”
K. C. Mittal, former chairman of the Bar Council of Delhi, also voiced his dissatisfaction.
Mital said,
“Nobody has learned the new sections yet. This will increase the work of judges as well as advocates,”
Mittal, who has been practicing law for over 52 years. He emphasized that experienced advocates will have to “go back to law college,” predicting “total chaos” in the courts for some time.
Mittal also expressed concerns about the increase in the maximum period of police custody to 90 days, suggesting that the new laws grant “unbridled powers to police” and warning,
“We could be heading towards a police state.”
Regarding the provision of Zero FIRs, which allows any police station in the country to register an FIR irrespective of the location of the crime, Mittal noted that quashing an FIR will become more difficult for the accused.
He explained,
“Imagine that an offence takes place in Delhi and the Maharashtra Police files an FIR. The FIR would be transferred to the police station of jurisdiction but for the quashing of the FIR, the accused might have to travel to Maharashtra,”
He further stated that the provision for time-bound investigations under the new laws is “redundant.”
He commented,
“In other Acts too, there exists a provision for completion within a time-period… for example, the Industrial Disputes Act. Trials in those cases are not being completed on time at all. This is just an eyewash,”
Senior Advocate Pramod Dubey highlighted some “inconsistencies” in the provisions of the BNSS. He cited Section 223 of the BNSS, which states that,
“No cognizance of an offence shall be taken by a magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard.”
He questioned,
“If the accused is given a right to be heard before trial and if cognizance is still taken against him, this means that his defence was rejected by the court. What then is the purpose of trial?” This could lead to an unprecedented number of accused persons appealing to higher courts. The laws could end up increasing the pendency of cases in our higher courts as well,”
Mittal also pointed out an additional sub-section to Section 153B of the IPC ‘Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration’ included in the BNS.
Read Also: Madras HC Advocates’ Association to boycott court to protest new criminal laws On July 8
In the IPC, Section 153B contained three subsections. Under the BNS, this is now Section 197(1), which includes four subsections. The additional subsection, 197(1)(d) of the BNS, covers the offense of making or publishing false or misleading information, jeopardizing the sovereignty, unity, and integrity or security of India.
Mittal noted,
“Any media person writing an article can be accused of providing misleading information and tried. Earlier, there was no such provision. This could have a chilling effect on the overall freedom of expression,”
Rajiv Mohan, who has been practicing law for 30 years, also voiced concerns, saying,
“There has been no proper training of lawyers regarding the new criminal laws.”
He acknowledged,
“It is correct that the bulk of provisions of the old laws have been retained in the new laws and every section is re-numbered but if a few changes were required in the existing laws, they could have been achieved through amendments.”
However, lawyer Ashok Aggarwal, with 48 years of practice, offered a different perspective,
“We are all used to such changes. A lawyer or a judge has to read the provisions of law repetitively, and this is required to understand and apply the law. There is no need to memorize the provisions of the law.”
The introduction of these new criminal laws undoubtedly posed a significant challenge for veteran lawyers, requiring them to relearn and adapt to a completely new legal framework. As they navigate this transition, the impact on the judicial system and the practice of law in India will continue to unfold.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
