India’s three new criminal laws replaced the IPC, CrPC and Evidence Act from 1 July 2024, introducing major changes to offences, procedure and evidence.
What Happened
Three new criminal laws — the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) — came into force across India on 1 July 2024. The three laws replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, respectively.
The three laws represent a restructuring of India’s criminal law framework. The BNS deals primarily with offences and punishments, replacing the IPC. The BNSS governs criminal procedure, replacing the CrPC, while the BSA governs the law of evidence, replacing the Indian Evidence Act.
The bills were introduced by Union Home Minister Amit Shah. Earlier versions of the bills were withdrawn and subsequently reintroduced as “Second” bills after consideration by a Parliamentary Standing Committee.
The Lok Sabha passed all three bills on 20 December 2023, followed by the Rajya Sabha on 21 December 2023. President Droupadi Murmu gave her assent on 25 December 2023. The three laws are recorded as Act Nos. 45, 46 and 47 of 2023 respectively.
The transition also addressed references to the old criminal laws in other legislation. The Centre issued a notification stating that references to the IPC, CrPC and Evidence Act in other statutes, rules, orders or notifications are to be read as references to the corresponding BNS, BNSS and BSA provisions.
The date on which an offence was committed is central to determining which legal framework applies. Offences committed before 1 July 2024 continue to be tried under the earlier criminal codes, while offences committed on or after 1 July 2024 fall under the new laws.
The structure of the three laws also differs from that of the statutes they replaced. The BNS contains 358 sections across 20 chapters, compared with the IPC’s 511 sections. The BNSS contains 531 sections across 39 chapters, compared with 484 sections in the CrPC. The BSA contains 170 sections across 12 chapters and four parts, compared with the 167 sections of the Indian Evidence Act.
The changes therefore go beyond simply renaming the existing criminal statutes. The new framework introduces new offences, changes punishments and procedures, incorporates digital evidence more directly into the evidentiary framework and establishes several statutory timelines for criminal proceedings.
Background / Context
The replacement of the IPC, CrPC and Evidence Act has been described as the most significant overhaul of India’s criminal law framework since Independence. The three earlier statutes were rooted in colonial-era legislation, with the IPC dating to 1860, the Evidence Act to 1872 and the CrPC, in its replaced form, to 1973.
The BNS introduces several offences that were not separately recognised under the IPC. These include organised crime under Section 111, petty organised crime under Section 112 and snatching under Section 304. The law also contains provisions relating to mob lynching and false promises of marriage.
Terrorism has also been defined for the first time in India’s main criminal code under BNS Section 113. The provision places terrorism within the general criminal law framework.
Another major change concerns sedition. IPC Section 124A has been formally removed. It has been replaced by BNS Section 152, which deals with acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India and provides for punishment of up to life imprisonment. The scope and operation of Section 152 have, however, remained a contested point of criticism and legal challenge.
Adultery has been omitted from the BNS. Section 497 of the IPC, which criminalised adultery, had already been struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional in Joseph Shine v. Union of India in 2018.
The BNS also changes provisions relating to sexual offences and punishments. Gang rape carries a minimum sentence of 20 years to life imprisonment in all cases, while the law creates a distinct category for gang rape of a minor below 18 years of age.
The law also introduces a specific provision for hit-and-run cases where the driver flees the scene. Under Section 106(2), such an offence can attract imprisonment of up to 10 years.
Punishment has also been modified in several areas. Community service has been introduced as a form of punishment for the first time. Fines have been increased in 83 offences, while mandatory minimum punishment has been introduced in 23 offences.
The BNSS makes significant changes to criminal procedure. Section 173 permits an FIR to be registered at any police station regardless of territorial jurisdiction, a mechanism commonly referred to as a “Zero FIR”. This is intended to allow the registration of information about an offence without requiring the complainant to first determine which police station has jurisdiction.
The new procedural framework also places greater emphasis on videography and forensic investigation. Videography of crime scenes is mandatory for heinous offences, while a forensic expert is required to visit the crime scene for offences punishable with seven or more years of imprisonment.
The BNSS introduces statutory timelines at different stages of criminal proceedings. Judgments are to be delivered within 45 days of the conclusion of a trial. Charges are to be framed within 60 days of the first hearing, and victims are to be informed of the progress of an investigation within 90 days.
The law also provides a statutory basis for trial in absentia under Section 356 in cases involving absconding accused.
One of the most significant procedural changes concerns police custody. Under Section 187 of the BNSS, police custody can extend up to 60 days within an initial 60-day period for offences carrying imprisonment of seven years or more. For capital offences or offences punishable with 10 years or more, the period can extend up to 90 days. This represents a substantial change from the 15-day police-custody limit under the CrPC.
The expanded police-custody framework has been a subject of criticism from bar associations and civil liberties groups and remains a contested legal issue. Sections 41 and 41A of the CrPC, which dealt with arrest-related safeguards and guidelines, have also been merged into Section 35 of the BNSS.
The BSA introduces changes particularly relevant to the increasing role of technology in criminal proceedings. Electronic and digital records, including WhatsApp chats, emails, CCTV footage, server logs and cloud documents, are formally treated as primary evidence under Section 57.
The procedure for admitting electronic evidence has also changed. Under Section 63(4) of the BSA, the certificate accompanying electronic evidence requires two signatures — one from the person in control of the device and another from a digital-forensics expert. Under the earlier Evidence Act, Section 65B(4) required a single signatory.
Despite these changes, the BSA retains roughly 90% of the substance of the earlier Evidence Act. Several established evidentiary principles therefore continue. These include doctrines concerning res gestae and dying declarations, as well as the rule that confessions made by an accused to police officers are generally inadmissible against them.
Taken together, the three laws seek to alter substantive criminal law, criminal procedure and evidentiary rules while retaining a substantial portion of the principles that governed criminal trials under the earlier framework.
Reactions / Implications
The new criminal laws have received both support and criticism from different sections of the legal system and political establishment.
Then-Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud publicly welcomed the new laws, describing them as a step towards digitalising and modernising India’s criminal justice system. The emphasis on electronic evidence, forensic investigation, videography and statutory timelines has been presented as part of this broader modernisation.
At the same time, senior advocate Indira Jaising and sections of the legal fraternity have raised concerns about the constitutionality of certain provisions. Questions have particularly focused on provisions that expand state powers or alter existing safeguards.
Opposition leaders, including Mamata Banerjee, objected to the manner in which the legislation was passed. They argued that the laws received limited parliamentary debate at a time when a majority of opposition MPs were under suspension.
Bar associations and civil liberties groups have also raised concerns over the expanded police-custody framework under BNSS Section 187. Critics have argued that permitting police custody over a longer period could have implications for individual liberty and procedural safeguards.
BNS Section 152 has similarly attracted criticism because of its scope and its relationship to the former sedition provision. The provision remains a contested subject of legal and public debate, rather than a settled issue.
Implementation has presented another set of challenges. Roughly two years into the new framework, reported concerns include training gaps among police officers, prosecutors and judicial officers, shortages in forensic infrastructure and uneven digital connectivity across districts.
At the same time, there have been reported improvements in compliance with the requirement concerning timely filing of chargesheets. Reported compliance with the 60-day chargesheet requirement has increased from 51% to 67%.
The practical impact of the new criminal laws therefore depends not only on the text of the BNS, BNSS and BSA but also on how courts, police, prosecutors, forensic experts and other institutions implement them. The transition requires personnel to understand new statutory provisions, adopt digital processes and work within newly prescribed timelines.
The replacement of the three principal criminal statutes has consequently created a new framework for India’s criminal justice system, while leaving several questions about implementation, institutional capacity and the interpretation of contested provisions to continue developing through practice and legal proceedings.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Issues 10 Directions to Speed Up Dowry and Cruelty Trials
