There are always two sides to a story. The new laws are one such story: look at them as a reform and there is light at the end of the tunnel; pick holes and you would reach a dead end. by KUMKUM CHADHA
New laws and a new dawn or new laws and a dead end ?
This is the debate on the new criminal laws introduced by the Government.
The new laws kicked in on July 1, this year.
If the government version is anything to go by, these laws focus on a victim-centric approach to deliver justice.
However, the Government’s claim of these laws altering the criminal system in India and ushering in a modern justice system has received a mixed reaction.
Critics see it as yet another attempt of the BJP “selling a dream” to the people: one without substance. But, there is a section who prefers to “wait and watch” without jumping to any conclusion. And for some, it is a “progressive and reformative step”.
A cop, everyone would agree, is an entity very few would like to deal with. Ditto about visiting a police station.
Therefore, any ease in that direction is more than welcome.
The new laws do, to some extent, take care of this.
So, what do these changes entail? And do they make life easier for an average citizen?
As of now, there seem to be no clear answers. Yet, a beginning has been made and even the critics need to pause and ponder before writing off the Government’s attempts.
Even the greyest of clouds have a silver lining, however faint or dim.
As things appear, the clouds may be grey but the silver lining seems distinct and clear. And for that, the Government could expect a pat on its back.
Nitpicking apart, it cannot be denied that in the ecosystem of any country, archaic laws have no place. What the government has replaced, for good or bad, are laws that have been in existence since the colonial era.
To quote Union Home Minister Amit Shah, these laws are “made by Indians, for Indians and by an Indian Parliament and mark the end of colonial criminal justice laws” adding that “soul, body and spirit of the new laws is Indian”.
However, the nomenclature of the three laws is quite a mouthful: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and Bharat Sakshya Adhiniyam.
The Government could have used a simpler language and easy to pronounce titles.
But the BJP government is focused on klisht hindi , chaste hindi, and would not, at any cost, dilute the language even if it seemed a tongue twister to the majority.
And this does not imply to the English-speaking elite which the Government has some kind of aversion to, but also to the ordinary people, including those in villages and small towns, who though well versed in the language, are not adept in high flown Hindi.
And what about the poor policemen who actually have to implement these laws? They decidedly and undoubtedly will have a rough time in correctly pronouncing uncommon words like Sanhita and Adhiniyam.
There are some who have slammed the Sanskritized Hindi and said that these laws will take us back to being a “land of snake charmers”.
But decoding the new laws, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita replaces the 163-year-old Indian Penal Code; the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita pushes out the 126-year-old Criminal Procedure Code and the Bharatiya Saksha Adhiniyam replaces the 151-year-old Indian Evidence Act.
Laws that were framed a century ago have no place in a fast-growing economy or a world that is rapidly changing. Therefore, there is enough merit in reworking laws that were caught in a time warp.
The refurbished laws provide for delivery of criminal case judgements within 45 days; charges to be framed within 60 days of the first hearing; state governments to ensure witness protection schemes; statements of rape victims to be recorded by a female police officer; child trade classified as a heinous crime; gangrape of a minor could attract death sentence or life imprisonment; punishment for abandoning women on a false promise of marriage; rights of victims to receive copies of the FIR and get regular updates on cases of crimes against women; introduction of zero FIRs and facility to report incidents via electronic communication; arrest details to be displayed at police stations; and gender to be redefined to include transgender people.
To quote Union Home Minister Amit Shah, the new laws focus on justice rather than punishment.
Credence is lent to this because of provisions like zero FIRs and obviating visits to a police station.
Those who have any first-hand experience would agree that visiting a police station is not only torturous but, in many situations, worse than the crime that has been committed. And in the event of a policeman who comes knocking at your door, the experience can be harrowing.
As for an FIR, registering one was very tedious and tough. More often than not, one was at the mercy of the police officer who rarely complied. On many occasions complaints either gathered dust or were consigned to the dustbin. In the absence of a deadline and accountability, the policemen played God and those seeking justice ran from pillar to post.
The new laws attempt to change this.
Much however depends on whether these changes would actually help victims or merely remain on paper.
If the Government were to succeed in implementing victim-relief, then it is a step in the right direction. Focus-shift apart, it also cuts the red tape and the never-ending processes.
On the face of it, it appears that the Police powers have been better channelized if not curtailed. But naysayers feel that the new acts have provisions that could be misused by the Police.
For instance, extending police custody from 15 to 90 days in serious offences could lead to the Police misusing its powers and committing excesses.
Under the new laws, terrorism has been redefined to include disturbing public order or destabilizing the country. This is prone to misuse because certain communities can be specifically targeted by a communal Government.
Mob lynching is a distinct offence and murder committed by a group of five or more on grounds of race, caste, place of birth, language etc could in many cases attract life imprisonment or even death penalty.
The new laws also call for a well spelt out speedy trial which if implemented in letter and spirit could come as a big relief in the face of the current situation of tareekh pe tareekh, or the never-ending postponements in courts.
Another reformative clause is the right of an arrested person to inform a chosen person immediately.
If implemented properly, this would eliminate an accused being at the mercy of the police officer who often denies all outside communication, thus preventing the accused from getting legal help immediately.
Of course there are misgivings about the why and how so to speak; critics are working overtime to find flaws; the Opposition is slamming the Government for what it sees as a hasty implementation.
There are several representations to seek postponement on grounds that there are discrepancies in many clauses; PILs have been filed; the legal fraternity has its own concerns on grounds that some provisions are unconstitutional. Naysayers have gone as far as stating that these laws are an attempt to “turn India into a Police state”. Others have rued the “lack of transparency”.
There are always two sides to a story depending on which page you want to turn. The new laws are one such story: look at them as a reform and there is light at the end of the tunnel; pick holes and you would reach a dead end.
