Need for consensus on sticking points in new criminal law
The Union government’s decision to amend and rename the three criminal laws has triggered a debate—not only on the content of the amended laws, but also on the lack of discussion due to the absence of most of the opposition during the bills’ passage. The provisions that have emerged as sticking points between the opposition and the government include an increase in the number of days the police can keep a person in custody from 15 to 90, retention of the provision on sedition, inclusion of terrorism in criminal law, and the definition of what constitutes terrorism.
The Bharatiya Nyaya (Second) Sanhita (BNS2), which will replace the Indian Penal Code, gives wide-ranging powers to the police without a commensurate increase in accountability. Experts have expressed fears that the powers given to police may be misused by their political masters to target enemies. The opposition was not present in force in parliament to debate these issues, as most of their members were suspended for obstructing House proceedings when they sought the government’s statement on the recent security breach. However, the tabled bills showed that the government had removed some of the more draconian definitions of terrorism, such as “intimidation of general public” and “disturbance of public order”, which were in the earlier draft. The home minister was right in highlighting that the BNS2 is designed to speed up justice delivery. Under the new laws, the police will have to submit an enquiry report within 24 hours of an arrest and file charges within 180 days. The judges will also not be able to reserve judgement for more than 45 days.
There is a strong difference of opinion between the government and the opposition over the definition of terrorism in the criminal code and the existing Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967. With the inclusion of terrorism in BNS2, there now exists two sets of terror laws; the police have been given power to choose which law to apply for a particular act. The opposition has strongly criticised this and has promised to challenge it in court. A wider discussion should have been held in parliament between the government and the opposition to remove the sticking points and avoid lengthy litigation.