On 1st July 2024, 3 new legislations bharatiya NyayaSanhita (BNS), Bharatiya nagrik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), Bharatiyasakshya adhiniyam (BSA) were introduced as they replaced their older counterparts: Indian penal code (IPC1860), Indian evidence act (IEA1872) and code of criminal procedure 1973(CRPC 1974) respectively. These changes are considered draconian legislations and there was huge dismay over their implementation by legal experts. 

 

The predominant precedent in criminal law of LALITA KUMARI VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2014) is overturned in the new legislation, this case mandated the registration of FIR  mandatory in cognizable cases by police officials as prior to 2014, there was huge laxity on governmental functionary and there was unnecessary delay in investigations too. This Supreme court ruling aimed to strengthen the legal safeguard for complainants. Earlier investigating officer used to have discretionary power to delay the registration of FIR as they laid emphasis on “preliminary inquiry” prior to registration. CRPC mandated that preliminary inquiry will only be conducted in certain cases like medical negligence, dowry death etc. Now BNS section 173(3) replaced and overturned the prevalent practice and gave widespread power to police in cases of imprisonment of 3-7 years. This new provision requires prior permission from deputy superintendent of police and a preliminary inquiry to determine if a prima facie case exist. 

 

RECENT CANCELLATION OF FIR REGISTERED IN DELHI 

The recent incident where the first FIR under new criminal laws in Delhi was quickly canceled highlights significant concerns about the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and its impact on the Indian judiciary. The first FIR registered in Delhi under provisions of the new criminal code (BNS) against a street vendor was cancelled after police filed a closure report in TIS HAZARI court on Tuesday (02/07/2024). Pankaj was booked for allegedly obstructing a public way in central Delhi’s Kamala Market area on Monday, when the BNS and two other new criminal laws came into effect. 

HOME MINISTER AMIT SHAH CLARIFICATION ON THE SAME

Union home minister Amit Shah said the first information report (FIR) registered by Delhi Police against a street vendor was not the first case under the new criminal code, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Earlier media reports suggested that the Delhi Police registered its first FIR under the BNS against a street vendor for allegedly obstructing a public way in Kamala Market.

However, Amit Shah clarified that the police have dismissed this case by using the provisions of review, PTI reported.

 

Police had initiated the process on Monday but it was formally cancelled after they submitted a closure report before the Tis Hazari court on Tuesday, a senior officer said.

 

Pankaj was booked under section 285 of the BNS for allegedly obstructing a public way while selling water bottles, bidi and cigarettes from a cart under a foot overbridge near the New Delhi railway station around 12:15 am. The FIR was registered at 1.57 am on Monday.

 

IMPLICATION OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA(BNS) 2023

Key Concerns

 

1. Ambiguity and Vagueness: – 

The quick annulment of the FIR against a street vendor for obstructing a public way underscores potential ambiguities in the new laws. These ambiguities can lead to wrongful accusations and misuse of the legal provisions. The fact that the FIR was deemed invalid suggests that the laws might not be as clear-cut as they should be, leading to confusion among law enforcement officers and the public alike. 

 

2. Political Influence=: – 

The involvement of Home Minister Amit Shah in canceling the FIR raises concerns about political interference in the judicial process. When high-profile political figures intervene in legal matters, it can undermine the perceived independence and impartiality of the judiciary. This can erode public trust in the judicial system and lead to perceptions of bias and favoritism. 

 

3. Impact on Marginalized Communities: – 

Street vendors and other marginalized groups are particularly vulnerable under ambiguous legal frameworks. The initial FIR against the street vendor highlights how easily these laws can be misapplied, leading to unnecessary harassment and legal troubles for those who are already disadvantaged. It is crucial for laws to protect these groups rather than subject them to further victimization. 

 

4. Judicial Overload – The introduction of new and potentially ambiguous laws could lead to an increase in FIRs and legal cases, placing an additional burden on an already overburdened judiciary. This can slow down the judicial process, delaying justice for more critical cases and contributing to a backlog of cases. Ensuring that laws are clear and unambiguous can help prevent such scenarios and maintain the efficiency of the judicial system.

 

 Conclusion 

While the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita aims to reform the criminal justice system in India, the recent incident in Delhi highlights the need for careful consideration of its implications. Ensuring clarity in the laws, protecting judicial independence from political influence, and safeguarding the rights of marginalized communities are essential steps in ensuring that the new legal framework achieves its intended goals without unintended negative consequences and BNS would lead to confusion in interpreting the legal provisions by legal experts and would lead to whole process of judicial overlapping as all Indian judicial system is well versed and used to pre-colonial legislations and new legislation would only lead to whole reinterpreting of all legislations which is superfluous.

All Rights Reserved (Soham Lakra Law Intern)