Critical Review Urged for New Criminal Laws in India Before Implementation
- Current Affair Writer
- Apr 6, 2024
- 3 min read
Summary:
India's recent enactment of three new criminal laws, scheduled to come into effect on July 1, 2024, has sparked a need for a critical review, particularly of certain provisions that pose legal, constitutional, and practical challenges. Key areas of concern include Section 106(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which proposes a 10-year maximum imprisonment for fatal accidents without immediate reporting, and other sections addressing petty organized crime, theft, and human trafficking. These provisions have raised issues regarding disproportionality, the right against self-incrimination, and the lack of judicial discretion, necessitating a thorough reconsideration to ensure they align with constitutional mandates and practical law enforcement needs.
Important Points:
Section 106(2) Concerns: The proposed increase in imprisonment for not reporting fatal accidents has been questioned for being disproportionate and potentially conflicting with the constitutional right against self-incrimination.
Petty Organized Crime Definition: Section 112 introduces the concept of petty organized crime but lacks clarity on what constitutes "similar criminal acts," leading to concerns over vague legal standards.
Theft Offense Revisions: The revision under Section 303(2) to treat theft of property under ₹5,000 as a non-cognizable offense raises practical issues for victims, especially those for whom such a sum represents a significant loss.
Human Trafficking Penalties: Sections 143(6) and (7) provide for life imprisonment without judicial discretion, echoing previous constitutional challenges similar to the struck-down Section 303 of the IPC.
Additional Information to Remember:
Judicial Discretion: The lack of discretion in sentencing under certain provisions could lead to legal challenges based on precedents where mandatory punishments were deemed unconstitutional.
Need for Clarity: The broad and undefined nature of terms such as "petty organized crime" could lead to inconsistencies in application and enforcement, underscoring the need for precise legal definitions.
Constitutional Compliance: Ensuring that new criminal laws comply with constitutional protections, such as the right against self-incrimination, is crucial for upholding the rule of law.
Practical Law Enforcement: The practical implications of changes, such as the categorization of certain thefts as non-cognizable offenses, require careful consideration to avoid unintended consequences for crime reporting and resolution.
Key Words and Descriptions:
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023: A new legislative framework in India aimed at reforming criminal laws, introducing new provisions and modifying existing ones to address current legal challenges.
Section 106(2): A provision under the BNS that prescribes up to 10 years of imprisonment for individuals involved in fatal accidents who flee the scene without reporting to police or a magistrate. This has sparked debate over its harshness and potential conflict with constitutional rights.
Petty Organised Crime: Defined in Section 112 of the BNS as criminal activities conducted by a group or gang, including theft, snatching, and other similar acts. The breadth of this definition and its sentencing guidelines have raised questions regarding clarity and consistency.
Theft under Section 303(2): Addresses theft with specific considerations for the value of stolen property, suggesting community service for first-time offenders stealing goods valued under a certain amount. This approach attempts to balance punishment severity with the nature of the offense.
Human Trafficking Provisions: Mentioned sub-sections of Section 143 highlight stringent penalties for child trafficking and trafficking conducted by public servants or police officers, emphasizing life imprisonment without specifying judicial discretion.
Constitutional Concerns: The critique includes potential conflicts with Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, which protects against self-incrimination. The mandatory reporting requirement and the severe punishment for fleeing an accident scene without reporting could be seen as compelling self-incrimination.
Supreme Court Precedents: The discussion references past Supreme Court judgments, such as Nandini Satpathy vs P.L. Dani, to underline the constitutional protections against compelled self-incrimination, and Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, which dealt with the vagueness and overbreadth of legal provisions.
Legal and Practical Implications: Concerns extend beyond constitutional matters to practical and legal challenges, such as the implications for policing, judicial discretion, and the overall effectiveness of the legislation in achieving its intended goals.
Published in : The Hindu
Date appeared in newspaper : 05 April 2024
Link to the article (might require a paid subscription) : https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/2024-04-05/th_international/articleGF0CKLQK4-6361686.ece
If you find our information useful, kindly consider subscribing to our daily current affair updates. (SUBSCRIPTION BUTTON GIVEN BELOW)
Comments