Share :
Introduction
In the recent winter session of the Indian Parliament, the union government introduced a revised version of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Bill (BNSS), aiming to replace the longstanding Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. While the BNSS addresses several aspects of criminal law reform, it has generated significant controversy, particularly regarding a provision related to police custody beyond the initial fifteen days of remand.
POLICE CUSTODY PROVISION
One of the key points of contention is Clause 187(2) of the BNSS, which permits police custody at any time during the initial 60 days (for severe offences) or 40 days (for other offences). This marks a departure from the existing Code of Criminal Procedure, where police custody must be sought within the first fifteen days. Critics argue that this provision lacks explicit safeguards, potentially opening the door to abuse by authorities.
The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs, in its recent report, expressed concerns about the potential misuse of allowing police custody beyond the initial fifteen days. Despite these concerns, the revised BNSS bill retains the controversial provision, ignoring the committee’s recommendations for greater clarity.
LEGAL PRECEDENTS AND COURT INTERPRETATIONS
The BNSS provision has sparked discussions on legal precedents, with the classical view limiting police custody to the first 15 days currently under reconsideration by the Supreme Court. Recent cases, including Central Bureau of Investigation v. Vikas Mishra, have shown a departure from the established interpretation.
The committee’s recommendations extended beyond the police custody issue, touching on various aspects of the BNSS. Some suggestions, such as empowering magistrates to impose community service as punishment, excluding handcuffing in economic offences, and introducing additional safeguards, have been partially incorporated.
ADULTERY AND SECTION 377
The committee’s recommendation to criminalize adultery in a gender-neutral form has been overlooked, despite the landmark Joseph Shine judgment striking down the discriminatory provision in 2018. Additionally, the suggestion to retain Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code for non-consensual sexual offences against men, non-binary persons, and animals has not been incorporated.
CONCLUSION
The reintroduction of the revised criminal reform bills, including the BNSS, has raised concerns about potential human rights violations and inadequate safeguards against law enforcement excesses. The ongoing debate, involving opposition leaders and legal experts, underscores the importance of balancing the need for effective law enforcement with safeguarding individual rights. As the legislative process unfolds, it remains to be seen how these contentious issues will be addressed and whether the final version of the BNSS will strike a balance between security concerns and the protection of individual liberties.
For more information or queries, please email us at
[email protected]
