From Codes to Sanhitas: Power, Myths, and Problematic Continuities

‘The new criminal justice laws mark an important moment in how independent India will function. It may herald a descent towards greater authoritarian tendencies and a nullifying of the judicial role by reducing personal liberty to a plaything.’

ABHINAV SEKHRI

In 2019, soon after securing a resounding electoral majority, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government let it be known that the reform of India’s criminal justice system was part of its agenda for its second term in office. This announcement piqued interests and concern in equal amounts. ‘Reform’, after all, is much like the concept of beauty, carries different meanings for different groups. A ‘reform’ of the criminal justice system in the hands of a government that had built its base on majoritarian promises and policies raised concerns.

These concerns gained substance when, in May 2020, even as the country was under lockdown, the government announced the formation of a Criminal Law Reforms Committee to review the three primary criminal law statutes: the Indian Penal Code of 1860 (IPC), the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 (IEA), and the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The committee did not have a single woman or a single representative from a minority group. Probably there were still some who clung to the hope of a dispassionate exercise by such an unrepresentative body, but most of these hopes fell by the wayside some weeks later when the committee revealed its plans for carrying out the reform effort.

At a time when the elite were coming to grips with ideas of working virtually and the country reeling from the after-effects of the first lockdown (with more to follow), the committee announced an agenda which envisaged completing consultations on three laws – that had a 150-year operational history – within a span of 12 weeks, done entirely by way of responding to online questionnaires with 200-word limits. Criminal law reform in an entrance exam avatar!

A predictable outcry followed and led the committee to change its timelines, extending it to 24 weeks , and doing away with the word limit to boot. Perhaps seeing that the public was not willing to play nice, the pretence of consultations were soon entirely done away with. Not a single response received by the committee was made public; no report prepared by the committee ever made public. Citizens were now left completely at the mercy of leaks to the press speculating what the criminal process may look like, with news suggesting that some interim report may have been prepared and shared. (See here, here, and here)….

https://www.theindiaforum.in/law/codes-sanhitas-power-myths-and-problematic-continuities

************************************************************

Apoorva Mandhani: Judge Loya’s Confidants Died Mysterious Deaths

A Professor’s Supreme Court Bail Hearing Is A Bellwether Case For Govt’s Use of India’s Anti-Terror Law

Gautam Bhatia on The Executive(’s) Court: Notes on the Legacy of Justice A.M. Khanwilkar

Father Stan Swamy To Posthumously Receive Human Rights Honorary Award At Geneva Today

Patricia Mukhim: Nagaland’s people deserve neither AFSPA nor gun culture

Bhima Koregaon: How the ‘anda cell’ is used to discipline prison inmates

Bhima Koregaon case: Bombay HC grants default bail to Sudha Bharadwaj, but declines the same to eight other accused

JYOTI PUNWANI: How 5 Reliance Workers Fighting For A Better Deal Found Themselves In Jail On Terrorism Charges

Sanjiv Krishan Sood: It Is the Need of the Hour To Understand Police Brutality in India and Take Action

Bharat Bhushan: No one critical of the government seems to be innocent any longer