Reforming Justice: Challenges Ahead For Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

The necessity of a New Criminal Code, the shortened legislative procedure for its enactment, and the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS),
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and the Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam (BSA) have all been hotly debated. With the declared goals of
"Safeguarding the public's rights and eliminating obstacles in the people's
access to those rights" and "Adapting them according to present-day needs,"
they replace the long-standing IPC, CrPC, and Evidence Act. The question at
hand is how to implement these new directives. That still causes me great
concern.

The new legislation's emphasis on accelerating trials is one of their most
ambitious features. It is now mandatory to give Judgments 45 days after the
trial ends and to establish charges 60 days after the initial hearing. This makes one wonder if the system is ready to handle the demanding deadlines. There are 5.1 crore cases pending in all Courts, according to data from the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG). In 2024, the average workload per judge increased to 2,474 from 2,391 in 2022. This implies that trials take longer. The amount of persons being kept in Jails awaiting trial or inquiry is evidence of the cascading effect. There would be 4.2 lakh undertrials in 2022 compared to 3.7 lakh in 2020.

The BNSS has expanded the scope of bail, as stipulated by CrPC Section 436A, to include first-time offenders who have completed a third of their sentence, out of concern that inmates should have further opportunities to get bail. In the past, this clause—also referred to as the "Statutory right to bail" in legalese—only became effective when an undertrial had completed half of the allotted sentence. In terms of policy, this reduction in time is advantageous.

However, the way the legal system operates suggests that there is a great deal of laxity in making sure that "Bail not Jail" is a reality or that the legal maxim that places life and liberty "Paramount" is upheld.

There are several mechanisms in place throughout the system to prevent
wrongful imprisonment. A few examples are state human rights commissions,
whose members can visit Jails at any time to check for overstays, undertrial
review panels that suggest which prisoners should be granted bail, and free
legal aid and visiting attorneys for those without legal counsel. All parts of the system, including the Courts, Police, and Legal Assistance, will require large staffing increases in order to approach the goal of turning intention into reality—for the time being putting aside concerns about infrastructure and quality.

According to the India Justice Report, there are 21% of vacancies in subordinate courts and 30% in High Courts, stated differently, one out of every three Judges is absent from the bench. Every increase in the number of Judges will necessitate an expansion in the supporting administrative staff, equipment, and physical infrastructure. Budgets for the Judiciary have grown between 2022–2023 although not in line with increases in the state GDP or inflation during that time. It appears necessary to do a cost-benefit analysis that weighs the administrative costs of extending trials and incarceration against the expense of building up infrastructure and human resources.

Author:
Aarya Kadam (News Writer) is a final-year BBA student and a creative writer with a passion for current affairs and legal Judgments.