Revamping can hold good only in practice
text_fields
After showing the door to the lawmakers who demanded explanation on security breach in the House, the government has got passed three bills that will reform the country’s criminal code. The three hitherto extant codes including The Indian Penal Code of 1860, Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) of 1898 and The Indian Evidence Act of 1872 have been reformed and renamed respectively as Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Surekha Samhita (BNSS), Bharatiya Sakhya Adhinyam( BSA). Home Minister Amit Shah expanded on the efforts required for the process saying that it has taken four years of work involving 18 states, 7 Union Territories, judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, 22 Law Universities, 142 MPs, and 270s MLAs.
The minister claimed that quite unlike the colonial laws that sought to punish citizens, Bharatiya laws will strive to ensure justice to them. Shah also said the principles on which the bills rest are Individual liberty, human rights and impartiality. He also stressed that the laws will protect the country from becoming a police state. The provisions in the new law will ensure speeding up of trial and punishment ensuring maximum justice right from the time the crime is registered. Everybody knows that it is not the dearth of sections in law books but delay and lapses in implementation that stretch cases to decades. The solution is not amendment of laws but reformation in execution. Going by the trajectory of Modi government’s administrative reforms, it is evident that they are limping even when the regime keeps cooking up laws after laws. Take for instance the punishment against lynching touted as the new contribution by the government. Mob lynching has been one of the crime trends that destabilized the nation as the Modi administration is approaching ten years in power. Though the existing laws have enough provisions to take stern action, providing maximum justice to victims, none of them has received even a sliver of justice. Even when the offenders were involved in activities that made a mockery of law, the leaders of ruling party were at the forefront of haling them with garlands. Given this, the fact that lynching is made a criminal offence does not make much difference but what matters is how far it will go in implementation.
The demerit that the Modi administration highlighted about existing laws is that they were devised by Lord Macaulay to fortify British rule in the country. There is truth in it and it is fine to amend them. However, the governed should be the beneficiaries if public welfare is the motto. The Opposition’s sarcasm that the BJP regime brings in new laws and amendments believing it will continue in power is relevant in this context. The notable section in the new law is the deletion of sedition law from the British era. Explaining that criticizing the government is not a crime, the minister clarified that actions that affect integrity, sovereignty and unity of the state are to be considered as offences. The new sedition law is brought in after removing the section that perceived resentment against the government as crime. It remains to be seen how actions against the government and the state will be differentiated. In the context of turning a mimicry in the house into a horrendous crime and insult to the caste, it remains to be seen if the new sedition and crime laws are for protecting Sangh Parivar’s suzerainty. Rights groups including Amnesty International have expressed concern over the new laws potentially infringing upon the people’s freedom of expression. So far all the laws that the Modi administration amended in truth were not for the welfare of the people but for protecting the government's and the party's interests. Hence these prejudices. It remains to be seen whether in practice the new laws will justify these concerns or fructify their declared objectives. The BJP being in power, it will not take long before seeing it in realty.
