By Aarushi Singh

Abstract

The anticipated introduction of three new bills in India, aimed at reforming the criminal justice system, has sparked a vigorous debate. Advocating for reform is crucial, but upon closer examination, certain drawbacks become apparent. Modifications to evidence standards present risks of privacy invasion and manipulation, and decriminalised offences raise worries about the impact on society. Even with the best of intentions, reforms such as victim recompense and more accessible bail must take possible hazards and resource constraints into account. It is imperative to tackle wider socioeconomic facets such as public opinion and education. The article explores potential disadvantages such as legal ambiguity, biased interpretations, resource limits, and more litigation, in addition to legal complexity. Before enacting these important reforms, a thorough assessment that takes into account all possible outcomes and involves public engagement is necessary.

Introduction 

Three new bills—Bharatiya Nyaya (Second) Sanhita, Bharatiya Sakshya (Second) Bill, and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha (Second) Sanhita—proposed by the Indian government have sparked a national discussion. Even though these bills aim to completely reform the nation’s criminal justice system, there are some drawbacks and unforeseen repercussions that should be carefully considered.

This article explores the potential drawbacks of the proposed reforms and analyses their impact on various aspects of the legal and social domains. We delve into the risks associated with decriminalisation, modifications to the norms governing evidence, and the possibility of bias and misunderstanding within the new system. Additionally, we address resource constraints, implementation challenges and the necessity for public participation in order to guarantee their efficacy and social acceptance.

Decriminalisation and Its Possible Dangers

One of the main reforms that have been suggested is the decriminalisation of some crimes, such as homosexuality and adultery. Although this is in line with changing societal perspectives and individual liberties, Decriminalising consenting homosexual behavior could expose people to abuse or coerced partnerships, particularly in underprivileged areas where there is a lack of societal acceptance. Furthermore, some contend that decriminalising adultery compromises the value of marriage and the family, which could result in a rise in social unrest. 

To address potential societal issues, awareness efforts that support responsible behaviour and good relationships in addition to decriminalisation should be implemented. Offer services and support systems to people in challenging household circumstances instead of depending exclusively on legal penalties.

The possible damages go beyond the legal domain. The suggested measures’ wider societal impact needs to be carefully considered. Despite strong legal grounds, controversial reforms like decriminalisation may encounter opposition from the public because of cultural or religious views, which would make their implementation more difficult.

For any major law reform to be successfully implemented extensive public awareness and education efforts are essential to ensure the public’s understanding and approval. 

Looking Past the Legal System to Examine Wider Social Effects

These changes have an effect outside of the courtroom. It is essential to examine their wider societal impact. Controversial changes like decriminalisation may encounter opposition despite strong legal grounds because of cultural or religious convictions. This may make implementation and gaining societal acceptance more challenging, necessitating large-scale public awareness campaigns and interaction with a variety of communities.

Public awareness and education are necessary. Campaigns for public education and broad public awareness are essential to any meaningful legislative reform. Successful implementation depends on ensuring that the public has the necessary understanding and acceptance. Engaging a variety of stakeholders, such as media outlets, social organisations, and educational institutions, should constitute a part of this process.

Modifications to the Evidence Rules and Possible Abuse

Proposed amendments to the rules of evidence are meant to expedite trials and boost conviction rates. Examples of these amendments include making it simpler for electronic evidence to be included and restricting hearsay. However, there are also possible hazards, such as concerns regarding possible privacy abuses raised by easier access to electronic evidence, particularly in the absence of strong data protection regimes. Strict authentication procedures are necessary to prevent erroneous convictions since digital evidence is prone to fabrication and manipulation.

Redesigning Victim Compensation

The goal of the proposed improvements is to enhance the criminal justice system for both victims and accused parties. Some of these ideas include victim compensation and quicker access to bail. Nevertheless, possible problems such as more people running from the law or committing repeat offences could result from easier access to bail, endangering public safety. It may be difficult to establish and run victim compensation programs since they call for substantial financial resources and effective execution strategies. It will require various resources, including labour, infrastructural improvements, and training, to implement the suggested reforms. The efficient allocation and management of these resources by the Indian legal system may pose difficulties, which could impede the successful implementation of reforms. 

Despite its good intentions, the proposed victim compensation plan may have practical difficulties in providing victims with timely and sufficient financial help because of possible bureaucratic roadblocks and resource limitations.

Clear requirements for eligibility for bail should be established based on risk assessment and potential harm to public safety. When it is appropriate, investigate alternatives to prison terms such as community service to address concerns about public safety while taking bail access into account. Examining public-private collaborations and effective approaches to resource distribution to guarantee victim compensation plans that are financially viable.

Requirement for Feedback and Inclusive Public Consultation

Adequate public consultations and feedback procedures have not been implemented for the proposed improvements. Therefore, their lack of inclusivity could raise questions about the changes’ legitimacy and ability to address the wide range of demands and concerns of the general population.

Incorporating opinions and viewpoints from a range of social groups, legal professionals, social scientists, and community leaders could result in comprehensive and inclusive reforms that effectively tackle the intricacies of the Indian legal and social environment. As a result, people feel more invested in the reform process and the public’s confidence in it is increased.

Possibility of Increasing Litigation and Systemic Burden

The redesigned judicial system, particularly concerning modifications to the laws governing evidence and bail requirements, may lead to increased litigation. This would put further strain on the already overworked Indian legal system, lengthening the time it takes to resolve cases and possibly preventing people from accessing the courts. Implementing new processes without taking care of the backlogs and inefficiencies that already exist could cause more delays and system stress.

The absence of clear definitions or ambiguities in the new legal framework may cause legal experts and law enforcement organisations to interpret it incorrectly. This might lead to biased treatment of vulnerable populations and uneven application of the law.

The subjective character of some crimes, like “stalking,” may allow for erroneous interpretations and possible abuse by the government, which would violate people’s rights. Tough definitions under the new legal framework could lead to interpretations and legal challenges, which would increase litigation and therefore slow down the delivery of justice as a whole.

Investing in strengthening infrastructure and expediting court procedures can enhance the legal system’s effectiveness and manage potential workload rises to lighten the load on the courts and accelerate resolutions, consider using alternative conflict resolution procedures like arbitration or mediation in particular circumstances.

Progress and Responsible Reform in Balance

The opportunity to update the Indian criminal justice system is provided by the proposed measures. But pushing through changes too quickly without considering the dangers could have unintended bad effects. As previously mentioned, a thorough and detailed study identifies potential hazards and emphasises the necessity of:

1. Extensive public input methods and consultations.
2. Broad initiatives for public awareness and education.
3. Addressing the logistical issues and resource limitations for effective implementation.
4. Ensuring the legal framework is precise and unambiguous in order to reduce misunderstandings and potential prejudices.
5. Putting money into bolstering the current court system to handle future rises in litigation.

Even if the proposed measures seek to update the criminal justice system in India, it is imperative to carefully consider any potential drawbacks. If these measures are rushed through without considering the dangers, unanticipated societal and legal repercussions may result.

Conclusion

It is anticipated that the introduction of these three new bills will have a major effect on the criminal justice system in India. It is envisaged that the modifications will improve the system’s effectiveness, fairness, and responsiveness to the demands of crime victims.

However, some people are worried about how the changes might affect things. Decriminalisation of some offences, for instance, has been criticised for possibly increasing crime. Some argue that it might be challenging to prosecute criminals as a result of the modifications to the rules of evidence. It is too soon to tell how these changes will affect things in the long run. Nevertheless, they have the potential to significantly alter the criminal justice system in India.

Even though the proposed measures aim to update the criminal justice system in India, it is imperative to carefully consider any potential drawbacks. Achieving the right balance between beneficial measures and their unforeseen repercussions requires critical thinking and honest communication. If these measures are rushed through without considering the dangers, unanticipated negative societal and legal repercussions may result. Therefore, more dialogue with a range of stakeholders—legal professionals, social scientists, and community leaders, among others—is necessary to guarantee thorough and responsible reform of the criminal justice system in India. India can effectively traverse the complicated process of reform and guarantee a fair and effective criminal justice system for its whole population by recognizing and embracing various viewpoints and potential challenges.

Author’s Bio 

Aarushi Singh is a law student at Jindal Global Law School, OP Jindal Global University, and is a columnist with Nickeled and Dimed. 

Image Source: Aroop Mishra