India minister introduces amendments to new criminal laws following controversial implementation

Following initial opposition from Karnataka’s Law Minister HK Patil to the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and associated legislations scheduled to enter into force July 1, Patil announced Karnataka’s intention to introduce 23-25 amendments to these laws before their enforcement in the state following a cabinet meeting Friday. These amendments are based on Karnataka’s feedback to the Central government last year in response to these legislative proposals.

Proposed revisions include amendments aimed at addressing contentious provisions perceived as undermining democratic freedoms, such as those criminalizing hunger strikes. Minister Patil specifically highlighted concerns regarding the BSA’s allowance of 90 days of police custody, which he deemed a violation of human rights. He emphasized the state’s commitment to safeguarding civil liberties while ensuring effective law enforcement.

Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah had previously written to Union Home Minister Amit Shah, advocating for 23 specific amendments across the BNS, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) Bills. These recommendations arose from the findings of an expert committee headed by the Law Minister which was formed by the Karnataka government to scrutinize these Bills comprehensively and identify vulnerabilities.

Moreover, criticisms have been raised over ambiguities in definitions and unilateral powers conferred by the new laws, such as the vague delineation of “organized crime.” Patil emphasized the need for clarity in these legal constructs to prevent potential misuse and uphold constitutional protections.

The implementation of the BNS, BNSS, and BSA on Monday marks a pivotal shift in India’s criminal justice system, replacing age-old statutes with a revamped legal framework tailored to contemporary challenges. However, the expedited passage of these laws through Parliament amid pandemic constraints and procedural concerns has stirred substantial debate and necessitated subsequent deliberations for refinement.