The reintroduced Bills have incorporated changes recommended by a parliamentary committee, including a revised definition of terrorism.
Certain provisions of the anti-terror law UAPA have been incorporated into the revised Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill. (Supplied)
The government introduced the revised criminal reform Bills in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday, 13 December, after withdrawing the three that were placed before the House in August this year.
The revised Bills — Bhartiya Nyaya (Second) Sanhita, 2023 (BNS); Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha (Second) Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS); and Bhartiya Sakshya (Second) Bill, 2023 (BSB) are meant to replace the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860; the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898; and the Evidence Act, 1872, respectively.
The revised Bills have incorporated changes recommended by a parliamentary committee — a minimum of five amendments. It has also redefined terrorism.
BNS specifically addresses offences that have emerged in recent decades, necessitating the formulation of new criminal procedures.
Certain provisions of the anti-terror law, the UAPA, have been incorporated into the revised BNS Bill. It now broadens the definition of terrorism to include “economic security” and acts of terror in foreign countries, among other amendments.
“Whoever does any act with the intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, sovereignty, security, or economic security of India or with the intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or any foreign country…,” it read.
In addition to triggering explosions, the revised Bill now deems the use of biological, radioactive, nuclear, or any other hazardous means, or any other methods likely to result in death, injury, damage, or destruction, as acts of terror.
The initial version of the Bill, presented in Parliament on 11 August, marked a notable development by formally defining terrorism within the general law, even though a specific legislation, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, (UAPA) 1967, already addressed this aspect.
The new Bill adds the caveat that an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police (SP) shall decide whether to register a case under this Sanhita or the UAPA Act, 1967.
“Disruption of any supplies or services essential to the life of the community in India or any foreign country; or damage to, the monetary stability of India by way of production or smuggling or circulation of counterfeit Indian paper currency, coin or of any other material” will be seen as an act of terrorism as per the newly introduced Bill.
As per Section 113 of the reintroduced BNS Bill, the penalty for engaging in the mentioned activities is either capital punishment or life imprisonment.
These new provisions are anticipated to empower Indian security agencies to prosecute individuals involved in terrorism targeting Indian diplomatic establishments in foreign locations under the purview of general law. The agencies are now relying on specialised laws, such as the UAPA, for addressing such actions.
The Bill also states that “Overawes using criminal force or show of criminal force or attempts to do so or causes the death of any public functionary or attempts to cause the death of any public functionary… kidnapping or does any other act to compel the Government of India, any state government or the government of a foreign country….commit a terrorist act.”
These definitions have been part of the UAPA.
The proposal involves increasing the minimum punishment for mob lynching and hate-crime murders from a minimum of seven years and a maximum of life imprisonment or death sentence.
Section 103 (2) defines mob lynching as “when a group of five or more persons acting in concert commits murder on the ground of race, caste or community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief or any other similar ground each member of such group shall be punished with death or with imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to a fine”.
The amendments also encompass the inclusion of harm to mental health within the definition of “cruelty” against women. In the first version of the BNS, Section 85 outlined a three-year jail term for a husband or his family members found guilty of subjecting his wife to cruel treatment.
The earlier BNS section lacked a specific definition for “cruel treatment.” The updated version now defines it as willful conduct likely to drive the woman to suicide or cause serious injury or danger to her life, limb, or health (both mental and physical).
Furthermore, the revised definition extends to harassment of the woman, specifically when such harassment aims to coerce her or any person related to her into meeting an unlawful demand for property or valuable security or results from the failure to meet such a demand.
An important amendment in Section 73 renders it an offense to publish court proceedings that could reveal the identity of victims of rape or similar offenses without explicit permission from the court.
“Whoever prints or publishes any matter about any proceeding before a court concerning an offence referred to in Section 72 without the previous permission of such court shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to a fine,” it said.
The printing or publication of the judgment of any High Court or the Supreme Court does not amount to an offence, it further explained.
The new Bill additionally stipulates that organised crime resulting in the death of any person will incur either the death penalty, life imprisonment, or a fine not less than ₹10 lakh.
Any continuing unlawful activity including kidnapping, robbery, vehicle theft, extortion, land grabbing, contract killing, economic offence, cyber-crimes, trafficking of persons, drugs, weapons or illicit goods or services, human trafficking for prostitution or ransom, by any person or a group of persons acting in concert, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence, the threat of violence, intimidation, coercion, or by any other unlawful means to obtain direct or indirect material benefit including a financial benefit, shall constitute an organised crime.
“Organised crime syndicate” means a group of two or more persons who, acting either singly or jointly, as a syndicate or gang indulge in any continuing unlawful activity,” it said.
The Lok Sabha will vote on the Bills on Friday, 15 December.
Home Minister Amit Shah, in three identical signed statements presented to Parliament, explained that the decision to withdraw the three Bills and reintroduce them was made in response to recommendations by the parliamentary standing committee on Home Affairs. The committee proposed the changes after extensive discussions with domain experts and stakeholders.
Shah clarified in the withdrawal statement that the aim was to make comprehensive amendments to the IPC. The BNS was initially introduced in the Lok Sabha on 11 August. Subsequently, it was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs on 18 August.
The committee held multiple rounds of discussions with officials from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice, domain experts, and stakeholders. On 10 November, the committee submitted its reports.
“Based on the recommendations of the committee, amendments are proposed in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill, 2023. It is proposed to introduce a new Bill in place of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill, 2023,” Shah told the Lok Sabha.
Two similar statements for withdrawal were also made regarding the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
Despite the parliamentary panel led by BJP MP Brij Lal proposing the reinstatement of a gender-neutral adultery law and advocating for penalties against non-consensual gay sex, the government expressed significant reservations about the suggestions.
In the revised Bills, the government opted to revert to the term “unsound mind” instead of “mental illness,” as initially recommended by the panel.
Section 153A of the IPC, dealing with hate speeches and prohibits promoting enmity between different groups based on religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and engaging in acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony, has been incorporated into Section 196 (a) of the BNS Bill.
Recognising the evolution of communication methods with the advent of the internet and broadcast, the new Bill introduced the term ‘electronic communication’ in tune with the changing times.
Section 196(a) of BNS states: Whoever by words, either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic communication or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities;
Likewise, in cases related to hate speeches, the provision concerning outraging religious feelings, previously governed by IPC 295A, has now been established as a distinct section in the BNS Bill. Furthermore, the new section explicitly includes electronic means as a medium for outraging religious feelings.
The new section 299 of BNS states: “Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic means or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
In cases involving hate speeches against a particular religion, the BNS Bill introduced changes to IPC Section 505 (2). This section, previously utilised for such cases, has been replaced by Section 353(2) in the new Bill. Notably, the modification involves the inclusion of electronic means of communication.
Additionally, in a noteworthy transformation, defamation, which was originally included in the criminal intimidation chapter of the IPC, has been restructured into a new chapter.
The Hindification of the Bills suggested an effort by the government to incorporate elements of the nation’s heritage from the Northern states’ perspective.
May 04, 2024
Apr 16, 2024
Apr 06, 2024
Mar 30, 2024
Mar 30, 2024
Mar 14, 2024
