An Evolution Of B.N.S.S., In The Light Of Political Martyrdoms

Author: LawSphereX

Category: General Law

Published: 2026-08-23T17:54:33.913939+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:12:14.96+00:00

AN EVOLUTION OF B.N.S.S., IN THE LIGHT OF POLITICAL

MARTYRDOMS

Dr Gowthaman N, Associate Professor, (Crime and Tort), Chennai Dr Ambedkar Law College, Pudupakkam

ABSTRACT

India’s criminal justice system has witnessed critical turning points shaped not only by legal developments but also by the tragic loss of its national leaders through assassinations. The deaths of M. K. Gandhi (1948), Indira Gandhi (1984), and Rajiv Gandhi (1991) triggered immense national trauma and posed significant challenges to the criminal justice framework. These incidents sparked debates around sentencing policies, particularly concerning commutation and remission of sentences, and brought into focus the constitutional powers of the President and Governors under Articles 72 and 161. This research explores the evolution of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in light of these political martyrdoms, focusing on the shifting legal approach to punishments, executive discretion, and the Supreme Court's decisions. The study analyses landmark judgments such as Union of India v. V.

Sriharan (2015), which redefined the scope of remission. With the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B. N. S. S. ), 2023, the paper examines the transformation of procedural criminal law, identifying how the lessons from historical tragedies have informed the restructuring of legal provisions. Through doctrinal and analytical methodology, this research highlights the intersection of law, politics, and public sentiment in shaping penal policy in India. Ultimately, the study aims to understand whether these legal amendments have strengthened justice delivery or tilted the balance between reformation and retribution in sensitive criminal laws. Keywords: Assassinations, Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), Suspension of sentence, Commutation and Remission, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

INTRODUCTION

India’s criminal justice system, initially governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), has undergone significant transformation since its colonial inception. While legal reform is often a slow and methodical process, there are moments in history when national events accelerate the urgency for change. Among such moments are the tragic of assassinations especially India’s most iconic leaders—Mahatma Gandhi in 1948, Indira Gandhi in 1984, and Rajiv Gandhi in 1991. These assassinations did not merely leave a political and emotional void in the country but also acted as catalysts in shaping the nation’s criminal laws, particularly in the context of sentencing, commutation, and remissions. The aftermath of these high-profile cases brought intense public scrutiny and posed challenging questions to the legal system:

1. Should the perpetrators of such heinous crimes be allowed the benefit of remission or

commutation?

2. What role should the executive and judiciary play in ensuring both justice and

constitutional balance? These questions became even more relevant in the context of the separation of powers and the federal structure of India, especially when conflicting opinions arose between the Union and the States on matters related to criminal justice. A major turning point came with the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench judgment in Union

of India v. V. Sriharan (2015), which redefined the scope of executive powers and clarified the requirement of Central consultation in serious cases involving national interest. The judgment was largely shaped by the legal complexity surrounding the remission plea of the convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. Over time, such developments revealed gaps in the procedural framework of CrPC, particularly in dealing with crimes that have national and political repercussions. In response to such challenges and the changing socio-political landscape, the Government of India introduced the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in 2023, aiming to replace the post-colonial CrPC with a more contemporary and secure procedural code. This paper traces the legal journey from CrPC to BNSS through the lens of political martyrdoms, offering

a critical study of how these events contributed to shaping India’s modern criminal procedural framework. LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF COMMUTATION AND REMISSION UNDER Cr. P. C The Indian criminal justice system is not solely punitive but also recognizes the reformative aspect of sentencing. The legal provisions for commutation and remission of sentences are embedded within the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, particularly under Sections 432 to 4351, and are further supported by constitutional provisions under Articles 722 and 1613. These provisions empower the executive branch—both at the State and Union levels—to intervene in the process of punishment, offering relief to convicts under exceptional circumstances, or based on mercy, rehabilitation, or public policy.

Understanding Commutation and Remission The terms commutation and remission, though often used together, hold distinct legal meanings. Commutation refers to the substitution of one form of punishment with a lesser form. For instance, a death sentence may be commuted to life imprisonment. On the other hand, remission does not alter the nature of the punishment but reduces its duration. It is depending on the convict’s conduct, age, health, or other humanitarian grounds. Relevant Provisions in CrPC: Sections 432 to 435 The CrPC, under Section 432, provides that the appropriate Government may, at any time after the sentence has been passed, remit or suspend the execution of the sentence in whole or in part. The word “appropriate Government” varies depending on the nature of the offence— whether the offence falls under the domain of the Central or State Government.

Section 433 deals with commutation, enabling the Government to substitute: i. A death sentence with any other punishment provided by law;

1 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, under Sections 432 to 435

https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15272/1/the_code_of_criminal_procedure,_1973.pdf

2 Constitutional provisions under Articles 72

https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/19151/1/constitution_of_india.pdf

3 Constitutional provisions under Articles 161

https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/19151/1/constitution_of_india.pdf

ii. Life imprisonment with a term not exceeding 14 years or with a fine; iii. Rigorous imprisonment with simple imprisonment or fine; iv. Simple imprisonment with a fine. The safeguard provision under Section 433A, however, places a restriction. It mandates that in cases where a sentence of life imprisonment is imposed for an offence for which death is one of the punishments under the IPC, the convict must serve at least 14 years of imprisonment before being considered for remission or commutation. Section 434 empowers the Central Government to exercise similar powers in certain cases where the offence is also under Union Government jurisdiction. Section 435 adds a layer of federal balance.

It mandates that the State Government must obtain the Central Government’s consultation before remitting or commuting a sentence in cases investigated by central agencies like the CBI, or where the offence involves matters of national interest. Role of the State and Central Government The division of power between the State and Centre in this context is complex. The "appropriate Government" is generally the State Government for offences under State jurisdiction. However, when the offence concerns national security, terrorism, or central agencies’ involvement, the Centre’s role becomes primary or supervisory. This dual structure has been a subject of judicial interpretation and constitutional tension. In the landmark case of K. M. Nanavati v.

State of Bombay4, the Supreme Court clarified that the power of remission and commutation by the executive does not override judicial sentencing but works concurrently, subject to limitations imposed by statute and judicial pronouncements. Later, the State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh5, emphasized that remission is not a right of the convict but a privilege conferred by the State in the interest of justice and public good. The Court also stressed the need for fairness and transparency in granting such benefits.

4 K.M. Nanavati v. State of Bombay, AIR 1961 SC 112

5 State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh, (2000) 3 SCC 394

Judicial interpretation The most significant judgment in recent times on this issue is Union of India v. V. Sriharan @ Mottai Murugan & Others6, also known as the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that in cases of heinous crimes investigated by central agencies or involving national ramifications, the State Government cannot unilaterally grant remission or commutation. The Central Government’s consultation is mandatory and binding under Section 435 CrPC. This judgment was pivotal in redefining federal criminal law, especially in politically sensitive cases. The Court also introduced the concept of "special category" of life imprisonment, where remission can be denied judicially, thereby limiting the executive's power.

Role of the President and Governor under Articles 72 and 1617 Apart from the CrPC, the Constitution of India empowers the President and the Governors to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions under Articles 72 and 161, respectively. I.

Article 72 grants the President the power to pardon or commute any sentence in cases where: a) The punishment is by a court-martial; b) The offence relates to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends; c) The sentence is one of death. II.

Article 161 gives similar powers to the Governor of a State, with respect to matters under the State’s executive power. In Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of Andra Pradesh,8 the Supreme Court held that while these constitutional powers are wide, they are not absolute and are subject to judicial review. Any

6 Union of India v. V. Sriharan @ Murugan & Others, (2016) 7 SCC 1

7 Supra

8 Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of A.P., (2006) 8 SCC 161

pardon or remission granted on arbitrary with, mala fide innature, or irrelevant grounds can be struck down. Similarly, in Kehar Singh v. Union of India,9, the Court held that the President can consider the nature and circumstances of the case, even after all judicial remedies have been exhausted. The President acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers, and the scope of inquiry in such cases can be wider than that of a court. The legal framework surrounding commutation and remission in India reflects the intricate balance between justice, mercy, and constitutional governance. Through Sections 432 to 435 of the CrPC and Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution, the system allows room for human compassion within the bounds of law. However, high-profile cases involving assassinations have challenged and refined this framework over the years.

Judicial pronouncements, especially in the context of consultation between Centre and State, have brought greater clarity and accountability. These developments have laid a strong foundation for reforms, as seen in the evaluation of the BNSS, which further streamlines and secures the process of executive intervention in sentencing. Early Judicial Approach: Discretion vs. Judicial Oversight In Maru Ram v. Union of India10, the Supreme Court held that the powers of pardon, remission, and commutation under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution are not arbitrary and must be exercised in accordance with the rule of law. The Court stated that although the executive has the constitutional authority to alter or reduce judicial sentences, such powers are subject to judicial review and cannot be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically.

This case laid the foundation for later scrutiny of remission policies, emphasizing the need for reasoned decisions, especially in cases of grave offences. The judgment also indicated that statutory provisions under CrPC must operate in harmony with constitutional principles, thereby beginning the conversation on the limits of State autonomy in remission matters.

9 Kehar Singh v. Union of India, (1989) 1 SCC 204

10 Maru Ram v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 107

Judicial Reflections on Remission and Consultation In State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh11, the Supreme Court examined the powers of the State to grant premature release to convicts serving life sentences. The Court noted that remission policies must be applied fairly and uniformly, but at the same time, State Governments must remain cautious in exercising such powers in cases where public security or national interest is involved. Although the case did not directly deal with inter-governmental consultation, it indirectly stressed the importance of contextual and reasoned decision-making in remission cases. This principle was further elaborated in Ashok Kumar @ Golu v. Union of India12, where the Court held that remission decisions must be guided by public interest, reformative potential of the convict, and the gravity of the offence.

The Court also clarified that such decisions cannot be reduced to administrative routine and should be subject to meaningful scrutiny, especially in cases involving political sensitivity or terrorism. Sriharan Case: A Constitutional Turning Point The Rajiv Gandhi assassination case became the epicenter of legal and political controversy when the Tamil Nadu Government sought to remit the sentences of the convicts under Section

432 CrPC. The Central Government objected to this move, arguing that the case involved

national security and was investigated by the CBI, thus requiring prior consultation under Section 435 CrPC. The matter was referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench, which delivered a landmark judgment in Union of India v. V. Sriharan @ Murugan13. The Court made the following key rulings:

1. Consultation under Section 435 CrPC is mandatory, and in such cases, the Central

Government’s views are binding on the State.

2. States cannot unilaterally exercise remission powers in cases involving:

11 State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh, (1990) 2 SCC 661

12 Ashok Kumar @ Golu v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 498

13 Union of India v. V. Sriharan @ Murugan, (2015) 7 SCC 1

a) Offences investigated by central agencies like the CBI, b) Offences affecting the sovereignty, integrity, or security of India, c) Matters that fall within the executive domain of the Union.

3. The Court upheld the validity of Section 433A CrPC, which mandates that life convicts

in certain serious offences must serve at least 14 years in prison.

4. It introduced the concept of a "special category of life imprisonment", whereby courts

can impose a sentence of life imprisonment without remission, thereby judicially restraining the executive’s powers. The Sriharan judgment struck a careful balance between the federal distribution of powers and the imperative of national security. It emphasized that public order and law & order, although superficially similar, differ in scope: while the former falls under State domain, issues of national security and political assassinations clearly belong to the Centre’s executive powers. Post-Sriharan: Evolving Interpretation and Compliance In Shabnam v. Union of India14, the Supreme Court reiterated that mercy petitions and remission pleas in death sentence or terrorism cases require exceptional scrutiny. It emphasized that both State and Central Governments must adhere to constitutional discipline in dealing with such cases.

This case followed the principles laid down in Sriharan and emphasized transparent procedures and inter-governmental cooperation. In Laxman Naskar v. Union of India15, while predating Sriharan, the Supreme Court had identified five key considerations for granting remission: socio-economic conditions, conduct in prison, potential to reintegrate into society, nature of the crime, and post-conviction behavior. These considerations were later affirmed in post-Sriharan jurisprudence, including in Rajan v. State of Kerala16, where the Court underscored that remission is not a mechanical process but must be aligned with public conscience and the broader goals of justice.

14 Shabnam v. Union of India, (2015) 6 SCC 702

15 Laxman Naskar v. Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 595

16 Rajan v. State of Kerala, (2016) 12 SCC 713

The Supreme Court’s interpretation of remission and consultation has undergone a profound transformation, especially in the aftermath of high-profile political assassinations. The Sriharan judgment serves as a constitutional watermark, reinforcing the principle that States cannot act in isolation in cases where the national fabric is affected. It underscores the need for cooperative federalism, constitutional accountability, and a balanced exercise of executive power. By making consultation with the Centre not merely procedural but binding, the Court has closed loopholes that might allow political influence or populist motivations to undermine justice. This jurisprudence has now paved the way for statutory reforms like the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, where such procedural safeguards have been embedded in law.

In doing so, the Court has ensured that the spirit of justice remains intact in the face of political trauma, public emotion, and executive discretion. HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF Cr. P. C POST POLITICAL ASSASSINATIONS Gandhi’s Assassination and the Birth of Procedural Urgency17 The assassination of Mahatma Gandhi by Nathuram Godse in 1948 was one of the earliest post- Independence tests of India’s fledgling criminal justice system. The trial of the assassins was conducted under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the old Criminal Procedure code, 1898. While the trial was swift and the verdict pronounced in less than a year, it raised significant concerns about public access to justice, the openness of trials, and the role of executive mercy. This case laid the foundation for a wider public understanding of how criminal procedure could become more responsive yet balanced.

It wasn’t just about punishment—it was about restoring public confidence. In the aftermath, there was greater emphasis on ensuring that high-profile trials, especially involving political figures or communal tensions, should proceed without delay but with strict adherence to fair trial standards. The backlash following the execution of Nathuram Godse also sparked debates on mercy petitions and clemency powers. Although constitutional provisions like Articles 72 and 161 weren’t yet in the Constitution (which came into force in 1950), the sentiment of the public set

17 Gandhi’s Assassination https://www.britannica.com/event/assassination-of-Mahatma-Gandhi;

https://www.historytoday.com/archive/months-past/death-mahatma-gandhi

the tone for the importance of executive accountability when exercising discretion in politically charged cases. The famous quotation “Life means life” was pronounces in first time in Narayan Godse’s case, 1949. The Indira Gandhi Assassination and Rise of Anti-Terrorism Laws18 The assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1984 by her Sikh bodyguards triggered not only a nationwide wave of grief but also communal violence, particularly against the Sikh community. This incident deeply shook the State machinery, exposing how gaps in procedural law, combined with administrative laxity, could lead to mass unrest and targeted violence. The response from the legal system was twofold: First, a more stringent approach was adopted to address terror-related offences and crimes against the State.

Second, there was a push for special courts and expedited trials, especially when public order and national unity were threatened. Following the assassination, Parliament enacted the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (TADA), marking the first major step towards codifying extraordinary procedural provisions to tackle acts of political violence. Though not a part of CrPC itself, TADA reflected a trend where procedural safeguards were gradually suspended or limited in response to grave threats to national security. At the same time, the CrPC saw increased use of Section 144 (Power to issue orders in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger) and Section 151 (Arrest to prevent the commission of cognizable offences).

These were used liberally during communal tensions, leading to accusations of abuse of executive powers, which in turn led courts to demand clearer guidelines for preventive detention and the invocation of emergency powers. Rajiv Gandhi’s Assassination and Federal Implications on Criminal Procedure19 The assassination of Rajiv Gandhi in 1991 by members of the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) fundamentally changed the conversation on criminal procedure, particularly around remission, commutation, and federal consultation. As discussed in detail in the previous

18 Indira Gandhi Assassination https://warwick.ac.uk/news/features/indira-gandhi-assassination/ and

https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/indira-gandhi-assassinated 19 Rajiv Gandhi’s Assassination https://adst.org/2015/05/reap-the-whirlwind-the-assassination-of-rajiv-gandhi/

chapter, the long judicial process and attempts at early release of the convicts catalyzed a constitutional debate on the balance of power between State and Centre. However, beyond remission, this incident initiated a review of how life sentences and death penalties were handled in political assassination cases. While Section 302 IPC remained the main provision for murder, the CrPC's sentencing and appellate procedures were increasingly invoked in a strategic and publicized manner, requiring greater judicial clarity. Public reaction played a pivotal role. Protests against early release of convicts in Rajiv Gandhi’s case forced courts to adopt a stricter interpretation of Section 435 CrPC (requiring consultation with the Central Government for remission in certain cases).

This led to the Supreme Court's advocacy for a uniform sentencing policy and eventually influenced debates surrounding the need for codified sentencing guidelines, although these are yet to be fully implemented. Legislative and Judicial Shifts The CrPC Amendment Acts of 2005 and 2008 reflect some of these procedural lessons. While these amendments didn’t stem directly from a specific assassination, the policy momentum was undoubtedly influenced by the challenges in dealing with high-profile crimes. Key changes included: i. Increased victim rights (Section 357A: Victim Compensation Scheme), ii. Mandatory notice before bail in heinous offences (Section 437), iii.

Provision for plea bargaining (Chapter XXIA), which, while controversial, signaled a shift towards efficient resolution of non-sensitive cases, thus allowing the judiciary to focus on grave crimes such as political assassinations. In People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399, the Supreme Court criticized police and prosecutorial inertia in riot cases following Indira Gandhi’s assassination. This judgment directed that there must be accountability and swift prosecution of communal violence cases, thereby indirectly influencing procedural accountability under CrPC. Another significant ruling was Devender Pal Singh Bhullar v. State (NCT of Delhi)20, where

20 Devender Pal Singh Bhullar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 6 SCC 195

the Supreme Court considered the delay in deciding mercy petitions in terror-related cases. Though the petitioner was eventually granted commutation, the case highlighted how execution of sentences in political violence cases needed stronger procedural safeguards and timelines. Impact on Death Penalty Jurisprudence The impact of these assassinations also contributed to the development of the “rarest of rare” doctrine, first laid down in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab21, but evolved further in the backdrop of political assassinations. Courts became more cautious, ensuring that death penalty is not imposed arbitrarily, especially when public sentiment is high, and media coverage intense. In Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab22, the Court clarified the rarest of rare test, insisting on balancing the aggravating and mitigating factors.

Post the Gandhi assassinations, the judiciary placed even greater emphasis on reformative theory, as seen in Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka23, where the Court introduced the concept of life imprisonment without remission as a middle path between life and death penalty. From the killing of the Father of the Nation to the assassination of Prime Ministers, each political tragedy has left a mark on the procedural canvas of Indian criminal law. The CrPC evolved not in a vacuum but as a direct response to public demands for justice, executive efficiency, and judicial impartiality. These assassinations served as both warnings and catalysts, compelling the legislature and judiciary to redefine the limits of executive discretion, to balance individual rights with national security, and to embed a structure of consultation and transparency in sentence execution.

As India transitions to new procedural codes like the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the lessons from these historical moments continue to resonate—ensuring that law reforms remain sensitive to national trauma while being grounded in constitutional morality.

21 Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684

22 Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470

23 Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767

TRANSITION FROM Cr. P. C TO B. N. S. S. : KEY REFORMS AND CHANGES The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), has been the backbone of India’s criminal justice system for decades. However, over time, it came under criticism for being outdated, colonial in structure, and unfit to meet the demands of a rapidly evolving society. In response to increasing concerns about procedural delays, misuse of executive powers, and gaps in dealing with terrorism and heinous crimes, the Government of India introduced the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (B. N. S. S. ), which aims to overhaul procedural law and align it with contemporary realities.

The transition from CrPC to BNSS is not merely a renaming exercise—it is a comprehensive reform grounded in lessons from history, particularly from high-impact cases like the assassinations of Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi, which exposed flaws in the criminal justice system. Introduction to B. N. S. S. 2023: Vision and Objectives i. The primary objectives of B. N. S. S 2023 include: ii. Expediting the criminal trial process. iii. Ensuring victim-centric justice. iv. Promoting accountability in executive discretion (especially in remission and commutation). v. Strengthening mechanisms to handle terrorism and crimes against the nation. vi. Making the procedural code more tech-enabled and accessible. The BNSS emphasizes "citizen safety" and attempts to strike a balance between state power and individual rights.

This emphasis has evolved from past lessons, especially in politically sensitive and terrorist-related offences, where lack of clarity in CrPC often led to controversies, delayed justice, or misuse of power. Major Procedural Changes Compared to CrPC One of the most notable changes introduced by the BNSS is the increased transparency and uniformity in remission and commutation of sentences. Under CrPC, particularly Sections 432

to 435, remission powers rested primarily with the State, subject to certain conditions. However, ambiguity about the role of the Centre, especially in cases involving Section 435(1)(a) (offences investigated by central agencies), led to legal conflicts, as seen in highprofile cases like the Rajiv Gandhi assassination. To address this, BNSS includes stricter guidelines and mandatory consultation mechanisms between the State and Centre in cases involving national security or central investigation. This change ensures that no unilateral remission is granted in sensitive cases, maintaining federal balance and national interest. Furthermore, BNSS introduces digitalization of procedural steps, including electronic service of summons, e-FIR filing, audio-video recording of evidence, and forensic support for investigation, which speeds up the trial process.

These reforms were inspired by delays in earlier trials of political assassination cases, where procedural lapses prolonged justice. Another significant reform relates to detention and bail. BNSS introduces clearer timelines for investigation and trial. Clause 187 of BNSS corresponds to Section 167 CrPC but mandates that no accused shall be kept in custody for more than 90 days unless the magistrate is satisfied with the justification for further remand. The introduction of digital case diaries under Clause 173(2) (akin to Section 172 CrPC) ensures greater accountability in investigation, a lesson drawn from past failures in politically sensitive cases.

Reforms in Terrorism-Related Offences and National Security While CrPC did not specifically deal with terrorism (which was governed by special laws like TADA or POTA), the BNSS framework integrates provisions that support fast-tracking such cases. It includes stronger monitoring of preventive detention and stricter requirements for evidence admissibility in terror cases, particularly forensic and electronic data. Following Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination, the delayed prosecution and complexity in handling foreign-funded terrorism prompted calls for better inter-agency coordination and legal clarity on jurisdiction. BNSS incorporates this lesson by formalizing inter-agency procedural cooperation, particularly when NIA or CBI is involved. The Centre’s role is more explicitly embedded, ensuring uniformity and national oversight in cases that transcend State boundaries.

Assassinations: Why BNSS was Needed Assassinations in India—especially those of the Gandhi family—had deep political and legal consequences. The delayed execution, ambiguous clemency decisions, and public outcry over remission of convicts, as seen in the case of the Rajiv Gandhi killers, revealed flaws in how executive discretion was exercised. The lack of a clear consultative mechanism between State and Centre under the CrPC allowed legal gray areas that were exploited by various political parties. For instance, the Tamil Nadu Government’s attempt to release the convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi case led to a confrontation with the Union Government. Under CrPC, Section 435(1)(a) did require Central consultation for cases investigated by a Central agency, but the language was discretionary.

BNSS removes this ambiguity by introducing a mandatory consultation provision, ensuring that Centre’s viewpoint is considered in the interest of national security and foreign policy. Moreover, these cases made it evident that victim’s voices were often sidelined. BNSS corrects this by formally recognizing the rights of the victim to be heard during bail, parole, and remission proceedings. This reform emerged from the judicial sentiment in cases like State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai (2014) 5 SCC 108, where the Supreme Court emphasized that victims are often the most neglected stakeholders in criminal proceedings. Case Law relating to Reform Ideals Although BNSS is recent and lacks case law of its own yet, it reflects judicial concerns articulated in recent CrPC-related decisions: I.

In Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, the Supreme Court condemned delays in mercy petitions and called for strict guidelines on death penalty procedures. BNSS internalizes this concern by setting time-bound decision-making for executive clemency.24 II.

Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra illustrated how legal ambiguity in execution of death sentences can lead to midnight litigations. BNSS aims to reduce such

24 Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014) 3 SCC 1

last-minute judicial interventions by standardizing procedural timelines. 25 The B. N. S. S. , 2023, is a conscious evolution from CrPC, incorporating judicial insights, executive experience, and historical lessons, especially those emerging from political assassinations and terrorism cases. Its reforms in remission and commutation reflect the need for institutional accountability, while its provisions for procedural efficiency address the citizen’s right to speedy justice. By placing a greater emphasis on consultation, technology, and transparency, the BNSS marks a significant departure from the colonial legacy of CrPC and attempts to build a justice system aligned with democratic and national security needs.

The transitions made through BNSS are not only legal transformations but also moral responses to the failures of the past—ensuring that justice remains robust even in the face of political or ideological violence.

CASE STUDY

The assassination of Rajiv Gandhi on May 21, 1991, in Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu, by an LTTE suicide bomber marked a new chapter in the legal treatment of transnational terrorism. His assassination was carried out using a human bomb—Dhanu, a member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)—which also killed 14 others. The case was investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Special Investigation Team (SIT), and tried under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) along with the IPC and CrPC. Twenty-six people were convicted, and four were sentenced to death. The use of TADA sparked legal and ethical debates due to its provisions allowing confessions made to police officers as admissible evidence and the curtailment of bail rights. In the 1999 judgment State v. Nalini & Ors.

, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentences of several convicts while upholding the punishment of others, citing individual roles and the principle of proportionality. Over the years, the convicts sought mercy from the President, leading to a prolonged legal battle between the State and Central governments. The Tamil Nadu Government’s recommendation to release the convicts under Article 161 of the Constitution clashed with the Centre’s authority, eventually leading the Supreme Court to clarify the role of Article 72 and Section 435(1) of the CrPC, which mandates consultation with the Centre in

25 Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra (2015) 9 SCC 552

certain cases. These assassinations collectively transformed India’s legal landscape. They highlighted the need for specialized anti-terror laws, the importance of uniformity in remission and commutation of sentences, and the demand for fast-tracked, fair trials. The BNSS, 2023, particularly draws lessons from these cases by placing checks on arbitrary remission powers, mandating Centre-State cooperation, and enabling technological modernization in investigation and trial procedures. It also recognizes the need for victim-centric justice, ensuring that the voices of those impacted are no longer silenced in procedural loopholes.

CONCLUSION

The evolution from the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) is not only a procedural update—it is the reflection of a nation's attempt to reconcile with its complex past, particularly in the wake of monumental tragedies. The assassinations of Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Gandhi, and Rajiv Gandhi were not merely moments of national mourning but also critical junctures that exposed the limitations of the legal and judicial systems in dealing with politically motivated crimes, terrorism, and executive overreach. Each case compelled lawmakers and the judiciary to re-examine the balance between justice and mercy, especially in the application of commutation and remission powers under Sections 432–435 CrPC and Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court's interpretation in landmark cases like Union of India v. V.

Sriharan underscored the necessity for central consultation in grave matters, reinforcing federal balance and national security concerns. Moreover, the intense public scrutiny, political pressure, and legal debates that followed these assassinations influenced both legislative reforms and judicial directions, gradually paving the way for a more accountable and victim-sensitive justice system. The BNSS seeks to address many of the historical shortcomings of the CrPC by ensuring greater transparency, limiting discretionary misuse of remission, and reinforcing state responsibility in criminal justice. However, the real test lies in its implementation and the judiciary's continuous vigilance to uphold constitutional morality. Political martyrdoms have shaped India’s criminal legal system, making it more robust,

reflective, and, hopefully, more just. The past reminds us that legal reform is not just a technical necessity but a moral and constitutional imperative driven by real human tragedies and the lessons they leave behind.

REFERENCES

Book

1. Kelkar, R.V. Lectures on Criminal Procedure. Eastern Book Company, 6th Edition,

2018.

2. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal. The Code of Criminal Procedure. LexisNexis, 20th Edition, 2020.

3. Basu, Durga Das. Introduction to the Constitution of India. LexisNexis, 24th Edition,

2021.

4. Jain, M.P. Indian Constitutional Law. LexisNexis, 8th Edition, 2022.

5. Pandey, J.N. Constitutional Law of India. Central Law Agency, 51st Edition, 2021.

6. Sharma, Brij Kishore. Introduction to the Constitution of India. PHI Learning, 2020.

7. Sethi, Sunil. Politics and Assassinations in Modern India. Rupa Publications, 2014.

8. Narayan, Shruti. Criminal Justice Administration in India. Daya Publishing House,

2018. Webliography

1. Ministry of Home Affairs – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita & BNSS Drafts:

https://www.mha.gov.in

2. PRS

Legislative Research – CrPC Amendments and

BNSS

Overview: https://prsindia.org

3. LiveLaw – Commentary on CrPC, BNSS & Political Assassination Cases:

https://www.livelaw.in Journals and Articles

1. Kumar, Sanjay. “Reforming Criminal Procedure in India: Challenges and

Developments.” Journal of Indian Law and Society, Vol. 9, 2020.

2. Menon, N.R. Madhava. “Politics and Justice in India: A Critical Evaluation of Legal

Reforms.” Indian Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 6, 2019.

3. Patil, Vinay. “Presidential Clemency and Remission Powers: A Constitutional

Analysis.” National Law Review, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2021.

4. Mehta, Anuja. “BNSS vs CrPC: A Step Forward or Legal Cosmetic?” Indian Bar

Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2023.