Nation

IIE DIGITAL DESK : The sharp dispute has erupted between the government and the opposition over the implementation of India’s newly enacted criminal laws. Senior Congress leader and former home minister P. Chidambaram has fiercely criticized the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), dismissing them as an inferior, “cut-and-paste” rehash of colonial-era legislation. His remarks directly challenge Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s declaration that these are the most significant judicial reforms since independence.

Speaking on social media platform X, Chidambaram recalled submitting a detailed dissent note during parliamentary review. His evaluation revealed that 90–95% of the Indian Penal Code, 95% of the Criminal Procedure Code, and 99% of the Indian Evidence Act remain intact under the new statutes. He accused the government of spending political capital on “a wasteful exercise” that has only “created confusion in the administration of justice among judges, lawyers and the police” .

Chidambaram emphasized that his dissent was never refuted in debates, asserting that only minimal new provisions were added—some positive, some questionable. “Nothing can be farther from the truth” than the claim of these laws representing monumental reform, he countered.

Amit Shah, however, has presented a corporation narrative: he argues the new statutes mark a “golden year of trust in the justice system.” He emphasizes that the laws leverage digital platforms—e-sakshya (electronic evidence), e-summons, and videography—to promote fairness and accountability. The intention is to make justice affordable, accessible, transparent, and time-bound, with full national implementation within three years .

Shah further asserted that these reforms replace the colonial mindset of punishment with a “justice-first” framework. They also include updated provisions on crimes against women and children, terrorism, organized crime, and paganization of sedition into treason—rewritten to align with Indian ethos.

Shortly after the laws replaced the IPC, CrPC, and Evidence Act in July 2024, legal analysts and opposition leaders warned of dysfunction. Nations like Al Jazeera and other experts noted risks of disarray and structural gaps. They highlighted the lack of substantive debate and pointed out that essential reforms—like police modernization and court infrastructure—remain unaddressed .

Chidambaram echoed these concerns, warning that the rushed rollout may have “thrown the administration of criminal justice into disarray”.

Though the new legislation aims to repeal sedition and introduce mandatory forensic evidence for serious crimes, remove outdated provisions, and offer digital-enabled case processing , experts caution that genuine transformation depends on implementation.

They argue that reducing case pendency requires more than statutes—it demands ample judicial resources, better-trained police, modern forensic infrastructure, and political will to uphold impartiality.

Chidambaram’s criticism may prompt more judicial scrutiny and a push for parliament to revisit the laws. Opposition parties could call for preserving colonial-era provisions while incorporating meaningful reforms through clearer revisions.

On the other hand, the government is expected to intensify its push for national deployment, buoyed by pilot-phase technological solutions and assurances from Shah. The coming months will reveal whether these measures can overcome structural inertia or continue to challenge India’s justice delivery.

As the debate continues, the question remains: Are these three laws truly a reformative milestone—or merely a cosmetic rebranding of the old? The answer may shape the future of India’s legal architecture.