New draft codes need wider consultations

Overhauling British-era laws needs transparency. But the new bills give the impression that instead of genuine reform, it was an exercise of leaving one's stamp just for the sake of doing so

- 

Anyone pretending to comprehensively analyse the three new bills that seek to overhaul the Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act within a week of their introduction must be either a genius or a fraud. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) comprises 356 sections, repeals 22, modifies 175 and introduces eight; the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) runs to 533 sections, modifies 160, repeals nine and introduces nine; and Bharatiya Sakshya Sanhita totals 170 sections, modifies 23, repeals nine and introduces one new section. Since I am neither a genius nor (hopefully) a fraud, I will leave the humongous exercise to others and restrict myself to some oddities and a few virtuous features.

First, the supreme irony. Touted as the panacea for criminal case arrears in India (estimated to comprise two-thirds of our distressing total of 50-million-case pendency), this legislative triumvirate might actually end up doing the opposite of what the home minister projected. Even slight modifications to the 505 sections across the three acts - as has been done - effectively subject overworked courts to repeated arguments; centuries-old jurisprudence overlying existing sections stands effaced and a de novo interpretation will consume endless court time before restoring the sanctity of the new language.

A fresh litigation explosion exceeding our existing numbers is the last thing this country can afford, but this appears to have escaped the attention of the mostly non-practising eminences in the committee set up for this exercise.