Decoding New Criminal Laws - A Comparative Analysis Between BNSS, 2023 And CRPC, 1973

Author: LawSphereX

Category: Criminal Law

Published: 2026-08-23T19:12:28.456Z

Updated: 2026-08-30T07:06:18.377Z

DECODING NEW CRIMINAL LAWS: A COMPARATIVE

ANALYSIS

BETWEEN BNSS, 2023 AND CRPC, 1973 Abinaya.S, Bcom LLB (Hons), Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University (SOEL). Harish.J, BCA LLB (Hons), Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University (SOEL).

ABSTRACT

The evolution of criminal legislation in India is a testament to the nation's advancing efforts to adapt its legal system to address contemporary societal challenges while aligning with modern jurisprudence. This article seeks to provide a critical examination of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in comparison to the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973, with a specific focus on addressing procedural shortcomings and the broader impact on the administration of justice. With over 177 modifications and the introduction of new sections, the BNSS specifies timelines for various legal procedures. Even this reformative transformation in the BNSS introduces several progressive changes, it raises concerns regarding the potential erosion of individual rights and constitutional safeguards.

By this analysis, it will contribute valuable insights into the future trajectory of criminal law reform in India, offering critical evaluations of the effectiveness of these legislative changes in promoting a more just and efficient criminal justice system. Keywords: BNSS, CrPC, Criminal justice system, investigatory powers, procedural timelines.

INTRODUCTION

11th August, 2023 marked a historic day as several speculations regarding the introduction of new criminal major laws were finally laid to rest. 1 The evolution of criminal legislation in India is a testament to the nation's advancing efforts to adapt its legal system to address contemporary societal challenges while aligning with modern jurisprudence. This article seeks to provide a critical examination of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in comparison to the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973, with a specific focus on addressing procedural shortcomings and the broader impact on the administration of justice. The Advent of new criminal laws reflects a concerted effort by the Indian government to address emerging forms of crime, including cybercrime, terrorism, white-collar offenses, and crimes against vulnerable populations.

2 However, the criminal justice system continues to face challenges like case backlogs, trial delays, and concerns about treatment of underprivileged groups. 3 By analyzing the constitutional implications of the BNSS, particularly in relation to fundamental rights such as due process, privacy, and individual freedoms, it is essential to emphasize to a comprehensive evaluation of how these reforms align with the constitutional framework of India. Through this analysis, the article will contribute valuable insights into the future trajectory of criminal law reform in India, offering critical evaluations of the effectiveness of these legislative changes in promoting a more just and efficient criminal justice system.

COMPARISON OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (CRPC) 1973 AND THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA (BNSS) 2023 The Indian criminal justice framework has predominantly depended on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which is rooted in colonial legal traditions. 4 The Indian Penal Code was enacted by Act No. 2 of 1974 and came into force on April 1, 1974, with the aim of strengthening and reforming the criminal law in India. It is enacted by the Parliament and is used nationwide as the primary law for the administration of fundamental law in India. The legal process has been simplified by major changes in the CrPC. The BNSS recommends the updated plan to improve and enhance the criminal justice system while preserving the 1 Sunishth Goyal, “An Exhaustive Comparative Analysis of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023”,(2023),NALSAR Hyderabad.

2 Aarohi Gupta, “Decoding New Criminal Laws

A Comparative Analysis with Traditional Legal Frameworks”, (2023), University School of Law and Legal Studies, GGSIPU.

3 Government of India, Report No. 78, Law Commission of India, 1979, Ministry of Home affairs.

4 Volume 2 ,Whitley Stokes, “Anglo-Indian Codes”, pages 2-3, 2nd ed, Press of India, 1988.

principles of the CrPC. Also focusing on speed, efficiency and public protection, the BNSS has made significant changes to speed up the process, reduce trial time and improve natural law research. LEGAL REFORMS INTRODUCED BY BNSS (2023) MEDICAL EXAMINATION: The Code of Criminal Procedure allows for a medical examination of a suspect by a registered doctor upon request by at least one examiner in certain cases, such as rape cases. In contrast, the BNSS allows an officer to authorize this screening. FORENSIC INVESTIGATION: The BNSS requires a criminal investigation, which carries a minimum sentence of seven years in prison. In this case, forensic experts will use mobile phones or electronic devices to record the crime scene and collect evidence. If the state does not have the means, assistance from another state should be sought.

PUBLIC ORDER FUNCTIONS: The CrPC outlines procedures for investigating and prosecuting crimes and includes provisions that allow the region to take decisions necessary to control the population. The BNSS enshrines these rights in one section. Given the different objectives of the judiciary and public administration, this raises the question of whether these activities should be subject to the same law or whether they should be governed in a nuanced manner. SIGNATURES AND FINGER IMPRESSIONS: The CrPC allows a Magistrate to direct any death penalty is imposed. The BNSS expanded this policy to include not only capital cases but also life imprisonment offenses and cases involving individuals with multiple priorities.

HIERARCHY OF COURTS: The CrPC defines the hierarchy of courts dealing with crimes in India, including (i) the Supreme Court, (ii) the Central Court, (iii) the Parliamentary High Court and (iv) the Supreme Court. It also allows the government to designate cities or towns with a population of more than 1 million as metropolitan cities to receive services from the local government. The BNSS has removed the responsibility of municipal bodies and city authorities. MAINTANENCE OF SENIOR CITIZENS:According to the Penal Code, if a person is unable to support themselves, a judge may order their parents to pay monthly maintenance. If they do not comply with the decision, the judge will issue a notice to recover payment and may sentence the person to up to one month in prison or until payment is made.

BNSS continues to provide services despite overlapping with the Parental and Elderly Care and Services Act 2007.

KEY ISSUES AND

ANALYSIS

EXPANSION OF POWERS TO POLICE: The Constitution and CrPC restrict police custody to 24 hours, and a Magistrate can extend judicial custody beyond 15 days only if there are valid reasons. Overall detention cannot exceed 60 or 90 days. The BNSS changes this by allowing police to keep someone in custody for 15 days at any point within the first 40 or 60 days, which could make it harder to get bail if the police claim they need more time for detention. POWER TO USE HANDCUFFS: The upper limit is only applicable to: (i) repeat offenders

LIMITED

SCOPE

FOR PLEA BARGAINING: A plea bargain is an agreement between the defense and the prosecution whereby the accused pleads guilty in exchange for a lesser charge or a lighter sentence. No crime is punishable by death, life imprisonment or imprisonment exceeding seven years. The CrPC does not permit negotiation of lesser charges or compound offences which would result in the accused pleading guilty and receiving a sentence. The BNSS reserves this right and prohibits negotiations in India for arrangements where the plea of guilty is replaced by a lighter sentence. CONGESTION IN THE PRISON SYSTEM: The restrictions on bail and limited plea bargaining options could hinder efforts to reduce prison overcrowding. As of December 2021, India's prisons housed over 550,000 inmates, with an overall occupancy rate of 130%.

In 2021, under-trials made up 77% of the total prison population, with approximately 30% of them detained for over a year and about 8% held for three years or more. DATA COLLECTION FOR CRIMINAL IDENTIFICATION: The BNSS is based on the CrPC and empowers authorities to collect fingerprints and voice samples even from people who have not been arrested during the investigation. The Crime (Personal Identification) Act, 2022 expands the data collection to include fingerprints, handwriting and chemical samples, which can be stored for up to 75 years. In light of the application of the general law on collection of crime-related data, it is not clear whether the data stored in the BNSS is still necessary.

CASE LAW

ANALYSIS

● Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1579,5 The indiscriminate use of handcuffs has been criticized, and the BNSS’s new subsection (3) to Section 43 may contradict this criticism by reintroducing their use for arrests. While it could be argued that handcuffs are necessary in serious cases and their absence might hinder investigations, the BNSS’s broadening of this provision may clash with the landmark

1979 Supreme Court ruling, which set strict guidelines for the use of handcuffs to

protect human rights. By loosening these restrictions, the BNSS risks undermining the safeguards put in place by the Court to prevent the abuse of such powers. ● Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2014 SC 187,6 The new law explains that

5 Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration,AIR 1980 SC 1579.

6 Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2014 SC 187

preliminary inquiries are only required in some cases. BNSS adds a new part to Section

173 of the law, which is similar to Section 154 of the CrPC (about "Information in

cognizable cases"). This new rule says that for crimes that carry a punishment of 3 to 7 years, the police can start an investigation if there seems to be enough evidence. However, if the police are unsure about the evidence, they can do a preliminary inquiry first. This change creates confusion about how it affects a previous important court decision. ● Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, AIR 1985 SC 1285,7 The new law changes the rights of informants by removing the requirement for police to inform them if a case isn’t investigated. Previously, the police had to notify the informant if they decided not to investigate a case, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in a key ruling. This ruling highlighted the importance of the informant or victim and helped create the "Protest Petition" process. By removing this rule, BNSS weakens the rights of informants during the investigation.

● In CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni, (1992) 3 SCC 141,8 It was previously understood that under the CrPC, after the first 15 days, a person cannot be sent to police custody, even if they haven't been in custody for a full 15 days. However, the new law in Section 187(2) allows police custody to be extended beyond the initial 15 days, up to a maximum of 40 or 60 days, depending on the case. Additionally, it removes the phrase "otherwise than in custody of the police" that is present in the CrPC.

CONCLUSION

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 marks a significant transformation India's criminal justice framework aimed at addressing various procedural deficiencies that persisted under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973. With over 177 modifications and the introduction of new sections, the BNSS specifies timelines for various legal procedures, including the completion of forensic examinations and the delivery of judgments within 30 to

45 days. The Court has also ruled on procedural aspects such as establishing guidelines for

7Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police AIR 1985 SC 1285 8CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni, (1992) 3 SCC 141 custodial interrogations and emphasising the importance of speedy trials. 9 These changes aim to resolve one of the most significant issues under the CrPC. However, while the BNSS introduces several progressive changes, it raises concerns regarding the potential erosion of individual rights and constitutional safeguards, which could undermine human rights during arrests and detentions. While the BNSS strives to balance effective law enforcement with the protection of individual rights, its impact on fundamental rights—such as privacy, due process, and personal freedoms—remains a critical area of analysis. These changes reflect the Indian government’s recognition of the need to address contemporary crime and adapt the legal framework to meet the demands of a rapidly evolving society.

As India navigates the transition from the CrPC to the BNSS, it is vital to ensure that these reforms do not compromise the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution. 9 D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal Court, December 18, 1996, 1979 AIR 1360, Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, Supreme Court, February 12, 1979.