New criminal Bills evoke mixed response from lawyers

CHENNAI: Introduced by Union Home Minister Amit Shah on August 11 to do away with the ‘colonial dominance,’ the three new criminal Bills bring out a mixture of opinions from advocates and law officers, from “it is against the nature of justice” to “it will protect the safety of women.”

The new Bills that revamp existing three laws, rename them as well. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) becomes Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) has renamed Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Indian Evidence Act will be Bharatiya Sakshya.

More than the content of the proposed Bills, the renaming triggered a minor furore, especially in the non-Hindi-speaking states.

The Bill, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, prescribes stringent punishment for crimes against women and children, up to capital punishment.

Under the proposed Bill, if a woman dies after rape or if the assault causes her to be in a persistent vegetative state, the convict shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than 20 years. This may extend up to imprisonment for life, which is imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life, or with death. Sexual exploitation of women on the pretext of marriage, job, promotions or by concealing identity will be considered a crime. Cases of raping minors can also get punishment like death sentence.

G Karthikeyan, senior advocate at the Madras High Court, says it is a welcome initiative, especially at a time when crimes against women and children are seemingly high. Adding a nuance to the widely held belief that criminal laws should be reformative, he said they should also be a deterrence against crimes. “Capital punishment will inflict fear in sexual offenders. So, we hope it will keep women safe,” he said.

Backing the proposal mandating handcuffing the accused involved in serious cases like murder and rape, Karthikeyan said restraining such accused persons would ensure the safety of police personnel dealing with them, like the officials who escort them.

However, some of the provisions in the proposed Bills, especially the expansion of the scope of sedition law, have become a controversial topic among law officers. On the face of it, the Bill repealed the sedition law. However, it simultaneously expanded its scope through Section 150 of the new Bill.

R John Sathyan, another senior advocate, opined that some of the Provisions of the new bill replacing the Indian Penal Code are draconian, which could be misused by authorities regardless of the political dispensation that is in power. For instance, he explained, if the law existed in the proposed form, those debating for and against on the Sanadhana Dharma could be hauled up and booked under the penal provision Section 150 of the new Bill.

His colleague from the Bar, John Sathyan, too, welcomed the proposal on handcuffing the accused. “They are not Gandhi or Buddha, they are persons accused in cases [of heinous nature],” he noted. Though laws may have been meant to reform, but the criminals could not be reformed with these laws in this changed society, he added. Even jails – where the reform is supposed to happen – “have now become part of a deadly cocktail,” he criticised.

Viewed from a holistic perspective, the proposed Bills are not new; only the numbers have changed, by rearranging the provisions and clubbing a few under a single head, he added.

One aspect of the new Bill that senior advocate Sankara Subbu criticised was the trial in absentia. The Bill empowers the judiciary to conduct trials without the presence of the accused and even pronounce the sentence. This provision, he added, was against the principle of natural justice. Unlike the others quoted above, Sankara Subbu opposed the enhancement of punishment to death. “Laws are meant to reform criminals. Capital punishments will only lead to adverse results,” he said.