BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023

Mustafa Khan

Integral University

Abstract

Over a century old, the Indian Penal Code of 1860 has provided India with the core of its criminal law but we need provisions to deal with crimes like cybercrime and gender-based violence. The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita seeks to update and simplify archaic concepts in the code and have more forward-looking punishments like community service for minor offences. Yet, despite wanting to be progressive, the BNS Act 2023 is not entirely void of gender neutrality. While the IPC has also faced such criticism for including gender-specific laws that only protect women, the BNS fails to use this opportunity and provides an incomplete vision for forcing gender-neutral laws and policies for equal protection for men as well, leaving a significant gap for inclusive justice.

Introduction

The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) enacted in 2023 to replace the century-old Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860, marks a significant reform in India’s criminal justice system. Aimed at erasing colonial remnants, the BNS seeks to modernize criminal law by aligning it with contemporary societal values, emphasizing justice, inclusiveness, and efficiency. With notable changes such as the reduction of sections from 511 to 358 and the inclusion of progressive penalties like community service for minor offenses, the BNS strives to simplify and adapt the legal framework to the needs of a rapidly evolving society. However, despite its forward-looking objectives, the Act falls short in ensuring gender neutrality, perpetuating criticism of gender-specific provisions that prioritize the protection of women over equal safeguards for all genders. This commentary explores the BNS’s ambitions, its significant departures from the IPC, and its limitations in delivering truly inclusive justice. 

II. Aims and objectives of the BNS (or the new IPC)

Erasing the Colonial Remains: Dismantle colonial remnants from the IPC, Code of Criminal Procedure CrPC, and Evidence which can create a uniquely Indian legal structure.

Justice-Oriented: Swap oppressive laws against Indians with laws oriented towards securing justice

Inclusiveness: Redistribute the power to signify the laws to Indian hands from the bogus ways in which the previous laws have been enacted.

Size and Simplification: Bring in the simplification to remove old age and complicated laws to comply with modern society.

Gender Neutrality: Include gender-neutral language, as contemporary social mores and values demand

Incorporation of judicial mandates: Make changes as per the suggestions given by the Supreme Court judgments.

Social Change: Adapted the evolving perception of society and needs. 

III.IMPORTANT DATES

1. On August 11, Union Home Minister Amit Shah introduced three criminal bills in the Lok Sabha, these three replace the: Indian Penal Code, 1860; the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (which was enacted in the year 1898) and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The new bills which were introduced include the Bhartiya Nyaya Sinha, 2023 which seeks to replace the Indian Penal Code (IPC); the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 which seeks to replace the CrPC; and the bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023 which seeks to replace the Indian Evidence Act. All of these were forwarded to a standing committee on the same day.

2. The Rajya Sabha passed the bills through voice vote, albeit the absence of more than two third of Opposition Members of  Parliament MPs, who had been served a mass suspension after disruptions on the floor as they sought a discussion following the December 13 Parliament security breach incident.

3. The Bill got the president’s assent on December 25 2023

4. It was brought into force on 1st July 2024

5. All in all, the BNS comprises of around 20 chapters.

6. BNS has been made more efficient, and will hence have 358 Sections rather than the 511 Sections that have been around since the IPC, 1860. 

IV. Sections of BNS

S. NO	CHAPTER NAME	SECTION
1.	PRELIMINARY	1-3
2.	OF PUNISHMENTS	4-13
3.	GENERAL EXCEPTIONS, OF RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE	14-44
4.	OF ABETMENT, CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY AND ATTEMPT	45-62
5.	OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMAN AND CHILD	63-99
6.	OF OFFENCES AFFECTING THE HUMAN BODY	100-146
7.	OF OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE	147-158
8.	OF OFFENCES RELATING TO THE ARMY, NAVY AND AIR FORCE	159-168
9.	OF OFFENCES RELATING TO ELECTIONS	169-177
10.	OF OFFENCES RELATING TO COIN, CURRENCY-NOTES, BANK-NOTES, AND GOVERNMENT STAMPS	178-188
11.	OF OFFENCES AGAINST THE PUBLIC TRANQUILLITY	189-197
12.	OF OFFENCES BY OR RELATING TO PUBLIC SERVANTS	198-205
13.	OF CONTEMPTS OF THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF PUBLIC SERVANTS	206-226
14.	OF FALSE EVIDENCE AND OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE	227-269
15.	OF OFFENCES AFFECTING THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, CONVENIENCE, DECENCY AND MORALS	270-297
16.	OF OFFENCES RELATING TO RELIGION	298-302
17.	OF OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY	303-334
18.	OF OFFENCES RELATING TO DOCUMENTS AND TO PROPERTY MARKS	335-350
19.	OF CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION, INSULT, ANNOYANCE, DEFAMATION, ETC	351-357
20.	REPEAL AND SAVINGS	358

The Constitution of India lays the structure and framework for a country, which defines the rights of citizens and the duties of the state. It also places constraints on the authority of the state in such a manner that these laws do not contravene basic tenets. On the other hand, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with crimes against the state in terms of the code and defines punishment for breach of citizens’ rights and for the duties of citizens.

• The Constitution defines certain parameters which cannot be breached by the states; whereas the IPC is concerned with the violation of rights by individuals.

• The Constitution guarantees certain rights and powers; the IPC through fines and other penalties enforces compliance to those Rights.

Like Article 13(2): Outlaw's enactment of laws that limit fundamental rights, Article 14: Prescribes equality before the law, IPC 376: Prescribes punishment for the offence of Rape (7 years or more), IPC 374: Provide punishment for forced labour (1 year or more in prison).

In a nutshell, these rights and duties are framed within the Constitution about the state and the citizen, and the rights are protected through the IPC against the citizens within the framework of the Constitution. 

V. Analysis

The Indian Penal Code (IPC),1860 enjoys the privilege of being one of the primary criminal legislations in India which deals with various kinds of offences namely, offences against human beings, offences against properties, offences relating to public order, offence on health, morality, offences against the state and so on. It has been amended from time to time and judicial decisions have also contributed towards its development by legalizing same-sex relations, adultery, and attempted suicide. States have modified it to further suit their needs such as the criminalization of sexual offences and the adulteration of foods.[1]

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) repeals the IPC and it maintains several provisions while introducing new ones and modifying others such as some of the provisions removal or increase in the penalization for certain offenses. 

VI. Key changes in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS):

1.  Offences against the body: It retains the IPC provisions relating to murder, abetting suicide and others, and in addition, includes organized crime, terrorist acts as well as mob lynching.

2.  Sexual offences: It criminalizes sexual intercourse that is done deceitfully and the age for gang rape victims is raised to 18.

3.  Sedition: As opposed to sedition, acts that undermine national unity, that promote more than mere criticism of the government or its leaders, or that promote secession is replaced by punishment of such crimes.

4.  Terrorism: Focus on defining terrorism with severe punishment, causing death for the act of terrorism comes with penalties which include death or life imprisonment.

5.  Organized crime: Under BNS committing organized crime invites punishment with imprisonment up to life and heavy fines.

6.  Mob lynching: Racially motivated mob attacks resulting in murder or violent retaliation have been expressly made punishable by law.

7.         Supreme Court opinions: Implement decisions like omitting adultery and implementing life imprisonment for certain types of homicide. 

VII. Positive Impact of BNS:

1. Lynching Mob: Offenses such as, mob lynching is legislated with penalty provisions that include life imprisonment and death penalty (BNS 103(2)).

2. Consolidation: Prioritize offences that are explicitly outlined such as offences against women and children, and offences related to murder.

4. Striking Offences: Raises the upper limit of the fines (in terms of 83 offences), starkens the prison terms as appearing in (33 offences), and sets a minimum sentence in (23 offences) instances.

5. Community Service: Incorporates community service as a form of penalty for non-indictable matters to alleviate the burden of incarceration.

7. Fake News: Publishing false news or any misleading statement becomes criminalized in order to fight hate speech. 

VIII. New Offences or Sections in the BNS:

1. Community Service

• For the first time Section 4(f) of BNS has introduced a new form of punishment – Community service.

• It is aimed to create a space within the community to alleviate the pressure on prisons; integrating community service for the first time in BNS as a form of punishment.

• BNS prescribes Community Service as punishment for petty offences such as failure to respond to an appearance Proclamation, attempts of suicide, harassment or undue coercion of a public officer, returning the proceeds of a petty theft to it’s owner, being drunk and disturbing the peace, harassing someone, etc.

• The term “community service" is not defined in BNS. However, that term is defined in the Explanation to Section 23 of BNSS as “the work which the Court may order a convict and which is performed in the interest of the society and for which he is not paid.” 

2. Abetting an Offence Outside India for the Crime Committed in India (New)

• The Commission of the offences comes into existence and can be abetted by a person who without and beyond India commissions the abetment in the Indian territory, act which constitutes an offence if committed in India Abetment, Section 48 of BNS states.

• Section 48 of BNS allows the prosecution of a person located in foreign countries and abetment by a person outside India.

• In IPC the punishment for this offence is defined under section 117 provides for imprisonment up to 3 years or a fine or both but in BNS it provides for imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 7 years or a fine. 

3. Mob Lynching [Section 103(2) of BNS]

• The new addition in BNS is Section 103(2) which is the murder in a mob, highlighting the power in numbers focusing on causing or being able to cause critical damage and loss of life.

• Section 103(2) of BNS states that if there is a group of five or more individuals, and if this group commits the act of murder solely for reasons such as one’s race, caste, community, sex, ethnic background, religious beliefs, or other varying reasons, then those individuals will be passively sentenced for death or a sentence imprisoning them for their entire life and fine.

• In the case of Tehseen S. Poonawala vs Union of India,[2] guidelines about Mob Lynching were provided by the Supreme Court. 

4. New Offence of Organised Crime

Section 111 defines organised crime as any act aimed at any of the following, rest on evidence – kidnap, steal a vehicle, robbery, extortion, land grabbing, missing persons case, contract killing, economizing crime, computer techno-crime, terrorism, swindler, drug peddling, illicit trading in weapons and other banned commodities, on its own or in collusion with other persons for profit or gain in any form and in any context. 

5. Petty Organised Crime

• Section 112 defines petty organised crime as a felony involving a criminal gang including the stealing, mugging, cheating, sale of fake examination tickets, and illegal sales of papers pertaining to any government examination procedures.

• For a category of petty organized crime, offenders are sentenced for a period that ranges from 1 to 7 years, while a minimum fine is also imposed. 

6. Act of Terrorism: New Criminal Offense

• section 113 talks about acts of terrorism which will damage national security or integrity and disrupt the public order. 

• The section provides overlap issues with UAPA,(Section 18) and approval of the superintendent of police is the basic requirement for these types of cases.[3] 

7. Grievous bodily injuries

The new provisions Section 117(3) deals with grievous hurt that causes a permanent vegetative state or permanent disablement and prescribes life in prison as the maximum sentence, not less than 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. 

8. Enhanced ambit of Theft Section

Section 305 further widens the scope of the term theft expanding it to include other items such as vehicles, government properties, and even idols from temples with an imprisonment term of not less than 7 years. 

9. Snatching

Section 304 deals with the crime of snatching of which the act is under prescription of stealing and includes a forcibly grabbing or pulling which occurs unexpectedly which is also chargeable by up to 3 years or a fine. 

10. Wrong Information

Section 197(1)(d) covers fabrication or distortion of information endangering national security which invites punishment of up to 3 years or a fine. 

IX. Negative impacts of BNS

1. The issue of Responsibility for Crimes Offenders Suffering from Mental Illness ( Section 84, 85, 89)

• BNS uses the term 'mental illness' as a replacement for the Word “unsound mind” defined in the mental health act 2017 which excludes mental retardation

• This brings to the concern that trial by jury may not exempt the group of people with mental retardation from being tried.

• MHA classifies alcohol or drug abuse as mental illness, therefore offenders can seek exemption in cases involving voluntary intoxication which is unrecognised by the involuntary intoxication general provisions of IPC.[4] 

2. Wide Terrorism coverage (Clause 111)

• Terrorism can be construed to include activities which are specifically aimed at causing a breach of public order, this may include all tries of offense ranging from armed insurrection to rioting.

• According to the SC there are public order disturbances and national disturbances and these are not the same.

• “Intimidation” is an undefined term under this model increasing the chances of ambiguities. 

• Overlap of Issues concerning UAPA (General law which is enacted later, supersedes the earlier special law if it is in the clear intention to override the said special law, R S Raghunath v State of Karnataka 1991[5] SC.) 

3. Petty Organised Crime (BNS SEC. 112 )

• More specifically speaking, it cover the vehicle theft, pick-pocketing, and selling of the examination papers where these are carried out by gangs which makes common features general insecurity.

• Words like ‘gang’, ‘mobile organised crime groups’, and ‘general feelings of insecurity’ lack clarity. 

4. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility ( Sec. 20, 21)

• It basically retains the provisions of IPC that a child below 7 years is exempted from criminal responsibility and a child below 12 years is not able to understand the nature of the act and of its consequences.

• This age is lower than the countries such as Germany which has a minimum cut off of 14 years and Scotland where the minimum is 12 years. Moreover the age limit is contrary to the recommendation given by the UN Committee in establishing over 12 years of age. 

5. Arbitrary Age Limits for Child Victims of Sexual Offending (Sec.  65, 91, 95, 139, 141(4), 142(1), 293, 94, 96)

• Offences against persons under 18 years attract higher penalties, but there are inconsistencies:

• Gang rape penalties apply differently if the victim is over or under 18 years respectively.

• Unlike the POCSO Act, 2012, under which child victims (anyone under 18) are categorised as minors, for the purpose of penalty for rape, the minor is either under 12 or under 12–16.

• For example, no kidnapping offences apply to any children aged 10 or over, which means that the legal punishment for kidnapping an 11-year-old is the same as for an adult.

• It keeps the crime of importing women under 21 years, but the threshold for boys is 18. 

6. Aspects of Sedition Retained

BNS: Punish for action of inciting secession, rebellion, subversive act or threat of sovereignty or unity of India. Covers vague phrases such as, "subversive activities," without definitions. This provision, critics say, retains some form of sedition (sec. 150).

7. Vague Limits on Community Service

BNS: Community service for specific offences, such as petty theft (up to Rs. 5,000), public drunkenness causing annoyance, and attempting to commit suicide to restrain a public servant. But here it does not regulate what community service is or how it will be administered (Sec. 4).

8. Sections 375 and 377

BNCS: Decriminalises "unnatural" sex (doesn't keep Section 377) It means rape of adult males and bestiality will no longer be crimes under any law. The provision had been withdrawn but is now recommended by the Standing Committee to be reintroduced. 

X. OVERLAPPING

· Adulteration of Food or Drink for Sale

• BNS: Imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6 months, or with fine which may extend to Rs. 5,000, or with both. (Sec. 274, 275) Non-cognizable, bailable.

• Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006: Punishable with imprisonment up to life and fine of up to Rs. 10 lakh, according to damage caused (Section 59).

· Drugs Adulteration and Sale of Adulterated Drugs

• BNS: imprisonment of 1 year and or a fine of up to Rs. 5,000. Penalty: Imprisonment for up to 6 months or fine of up to Rs. 5,000 or both. Non-cognizable, bailable. (Sec 276, 278).

• Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940: Death/grievous hurt: imprisonment 10 years to life, and minimum fine Rs 10 lakh or 3 times the value of drug. Other cases: Three to five years imprisonment and fine of minimum Rs. 1 lakh or 3 times the value of the drugs (Section 27).

· Rash Driving

• BNS: Imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6 months, or with fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000, or with both. Cognizable, bailable, non-bailable (Sec. 281).

• Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: First offence: Jail term up to 6 months and/or fine up to Rs. 5,000. Repeat Offence within 3 years: Imprisonment ranging up to 2 years and/or fine up to Rs. 10,000. Cognizable, bailable, compoundable (section 184). 

XI. Critique

Terrorist Act: The question of greater significance however remains, why did the government seek to insert Section 113 of the BNS into India's general penal law when the same offence is already contained in the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA). That breeds suspicion of ulterior political motives and the pernicious potential for abuse. BNS and UAPA define “terrorist acts” so broadly and imprecisely that non-violent activities or even democratic dissidence have led to thousands being jailed under UAPA.

The data shows a conviction rate of less than 3% under UAPA. A total of 8,371 persons — human rights defenders, grassroots workers, social activists, academics — were prosecuted under UAPA between 2015-2020, remaining in jail waiting for trial for 5–10 years as undertrial prisoners. The period of trial is often 3–8 years, leaving individuals acquitted with a broken life after languishing in jail for too long.

Sec. 152 BNS: On May 11, 2022, the Supreme Court of India, in S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India,[6] had directed all State governments and the central government to await all pending trials, appeals and proceedings regarding Section 124A IPC, as prima facie it opined that this Section did not resonate with the current social atmosphere. Notwithstanding this, section 151 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, reincarnates sedition with wider provisions and stricter consequences, wherein the highest punishment for sedition is raised from 3 to 7 years.

Such an intentional decision continues with some of the flaws of the previous sedition law while widening the definition of criticising the government, which would most certainly end up being misused against citizens calling for accountability. The law is criticized as a subtle effort to suppress protests that challenge democratic power and eine back dissent while concentrating police powers without adequate accountability, weaponized legal instruments throughout civil society — targeting non-violent and democratic expressions of dissent. 

Promise to marry: The new Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita has a provision under Section 69 to sentence the accused to 10 years of jail for sexual relationships through deceit, also on the pretext of marriage. The experts fear that Section 69 can be abused to harass and send men to jail just for breaking up with their partners. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita's Section 69 states that anyone who enters a sexual relationship without any intention to fulfil the promise of marriage can be imprisoned for 10 years. Earlier, such cases were being tried under Section 90 of the IPC, which stated a woman cannot be said to have been consented to sexual intercourse if, at the time of such intercourse, there is a “misconception of fact”. In a sense, Section 69 makes break-ups illegal, and men in relationships liable to find themselves on the receiving end of harassment unless the relationship results in marriage. Section 69 has been introduced to avoid the instance of marriages done by suppression of identity or concealment of facts. Deceitful has been defined in the Section as “inducement for, or false promise of employment or promotion, or marrying by suppressing identity. The promise to marry” aspect of Section 69, for instance, opens up a Pandora’s box for any parties in relationships as well as law enforcement officials.

Gaurav Wankhede vs Maharashtra[7] that if a man has sexual intercourse with a woman after promising her to marry her and then retracting from his promise, it would not constitute rape; as the promise was made in good faith, but he retracting from it due to the disagreement of parents. The specific provision of Section 69 that prescribes imprisonment for unilateral "promise to marry" has created a panic among couples as more assertions are expected against men due to unfulfilled promises as relationships sour. if the relationship ended for any other reasons but an intent to deceive could have been established and equally so the male partner would face dire consequences. It can be easy for men to be arrested without credible proof under Section 69 of the BNS. Section 69 of the BNS: To Be Or Not To Be | Issues with Section 69 of the BNS Does Not Stop Here In some cases, arrests can be made only after an initial investigation is conducted by the police. However, taking the evidence to court and build an airtight case would be an altogether different proposition.’ The court works on evidence. We must prove circumstantial evidence that there was a promise to marry, and the sexual intercourse took place as a result of deceit.

Need for gender neutral laws: Since the date of this judgment, Section 377 has been deleted to that extent, there will be a vacuum in the law in terms of legal protection of adult males and trans persons from sexual violence. “The POCSO Act covers all persons who are subject to sexual violence, up until the age of 18. when we see BNS excluding Section 377, it is evident that intrusion to the bodies of men and transgender persons are not taken even in grounds to be considered as offences should be punishable. “At least that seems to be the message the state is putting out

Section 375 of the IPC and Section 63 of the BNS both define rape with the wording, “A man is said to commit ‘rape’ if he—,” followed by clauses using the pronoun “she” for victims.

Did sexual violence and rape only occur to women? Between 2005 and 2015, a survey by Save Family Foundation and My Nation Foundation reported that about 19.8% of the men interviewed were victims of sexual violence and 25.2% faced physical violence. Both IPC Sec. 354(A) and Sec. 75 of the BNS provide for only "man" as a perpetrator and "she" when referring to the victim of sexual harassment. IPC, 354(B) and BNS, 76 deal with "Assault or use of criminal force to a women with intent to disrobe." The "any man" for the perpetrator in the old BNS was replaced with "whoever" in the new BNS, but the pronoun for the victim still appears as "she/her" suggesting that only a woman can be a victim under this section. Both Section 354(C) of the IPC and Section 77 of the BNS begin their definition of voyeurism with the phrase “Any man who watching, or capturing image of a woman….” No longer did the BNS read “any man” in relation to perpetrator, instead it said “whoever,” but this is still underpinned by gender-specific terms like “women” and the pronouns “she/her” for victims. Section 354(D) of the IPC and similarly Section 78 of the BNS define stalking, it begins with “any man” as the perpetrator and “woman” or “she/her” for the victim. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita has 358 sections, while the IPC has 511 sections. But it makes no accommodation for men. Though the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita claims to be a "reformative law", by and large, its provisions are just a natural prolongation of certain provisions of the IPC or worse. This law is a testament of how far behind our legal system still is. If we still cannot provide male victims (and their experiences) equality, that is a failure of society as a whole. 

XII. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 — Suggestions for Improvements

1. Repeal Duplicative Provisions and Prevent Abuse

Section 113 (Terrorist Acts):

Further, the UAPA already addresses this issue, so inclusion of Section 113 is unnecessary. This multi-legal framework creates an undue redundancy that translates to potential misuse of laws. So-called “terrorist acts” have long been vaguely defined to muzzle dissent. States must ensure that this section is dropped, or strictly limited to acts that actually threaten national security, with judicial oversight to safeguard innocent civilians. 

2. Say No to the New Sedition-Like Law

Section 151 (Rebranded Sedition)

This, however, flies in the face of democratic values and gives clearance to misuse against citizens who question authority or seek accountability. Peaceful protests, critical journalism and lawful dissent at any level both pre- and post-October 2023 must be categorically excluded from this section. The Supreme Court had expressly laid down in S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India that such laws are antiquated and out of place in a contemporary democratic society. 

3. Address Gender Bias in Laws

Section 69 (Promise to Marry)

This segment, while innocent in intent can be used as a weaponized harassment tactic against men in relationships. Criminalising break-ups exposes men to the risk of spurious allegations without sufficient evidence. The section must:

o   Need to see clearly recorded evidence of deception right from the start.

o   Implement safeguards to prevent men from being wrongly accused because of a failed relationship.

o   And be made gender-neutral to protect people of all genders from false promises.

4. Protect All Genders

This means that adult men and transgender persons become victims of sexual violence at the hands of other men, without any legal remedies. A forward-thinking society cannot afford to be blind to the fact that the phenomenon of sexual violence touches all sexes.

Sections like 63, 75, 76, 77 and 78 do not recognize that men can also be victims. So replace terms like “woman” and “she/her” with “person,” so that everyone — regardless of gender — is protected.

5. AGAINST OVERREACH AND ABUSE OF STATE POWER

The rights of its citizens must come before the state. Sections such as 113 and 151 empower the authorities without proper checks and balances. To counter arbitrary detentions and politically motivated prosecutions, an independent review mechanism is essential with judicial scrutiny. 

6. Safeguard the Innocent and Speed Up Justice

Such prolonged incarceration of undertrials, particularly under provisions similar to Section 113, is ruinous to lives and families. The state must Legislate fast-tracking of cases with set timelines for investigations and trials. 

XIII. Conclusion

While the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was hailed as a law of reform, significant aspects of the Bill retain the long-bemoaned biases and flaws of its forebear. It is only when gender-neutral laws govern that everyone receives the same treatment, and a fair legal system protects the rights of all citizens.

I'm committed to advocating for legislation that upholds the dignity, liberty, and rights of all people — men included. The law must be the shield of the innocent and the sword of justice — not a weapon of harassment or oppression. So, let's strive for a fairer, more inclusive and balanced legal system that truly embodies the principles of justice for all. 

Reference 

1. Negi, Chitranjali, Legal Evolution in India: Transitioning from Colonial Legacies to New Frontiers- An In-depth Analysis of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Bill in 2023. SSRN (December 03, 2024, 10:00 PM). https://ssrn.com/abstract=4677357 

2. Naik, Yeshwant, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS): A Critical Examination of India's New Penal Code, SSRN (December 01, 2024, 10:20). https://ssrn.com/abstract=4884622 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4884622  

3. The Legal Lock, https://thelegallock.com/new-laws-comparison-between-ipc-and-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita/, (December 02 2024; 9:00 PM)

4. Deeksha, Decolonisation of IPC | The Paradigm shift in India’s criminal justice system with idea of ‘Nyaya’ under BNS, SCC TIMES, (02 December 2024; 09:20 PM), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/07/01/decolonisation-of-ipc-understanding-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-2023/

5. THE HINDU, https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/revisit-these-sections-of-the-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita/article68029299.ece, (02 December 2024; 09: 30 PM)

[1] SCC TIMES, https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/07/01/decolonisation-of-ipc-understanding-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-2023/, (Last visited on 01.12.24)

[2] Tehseen S. Poonawalla V Union Of India And Others (2018) 9 SCC 501

[3] LegalserviceIndia.com, https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/legal/legal/article-17535-was-section-113-of-the-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-2023-regarding-terrorist-act-needed-in-the-presence-of-the-uapa-1967-.html, (Last visited on 02.12.24) 

[4] Report 264, Law Commission of India, 2017; Report 262, Law Commission of India, 2015

[5] R.S. Raghunath vs State Of Karnataka And Anr (1991) SCC 335

[6] S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India,(2022) 7 SCC 433

[7] Gaurav Wankhede vs Maharashtra (2024) BHC-NAG:1273