India Explained
ImplementedBJPNarendra Modi, coalition government

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

New criminal code replacing the Indian Penal Code, 1860; enacted in December 2023 and in force from 1 July 2024 with companion procedure and evidence laws.

Criminal codes · Idea originated under Narendra Modi (2019)

Facts

  • The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill was introduced on 11 August 2023, examined by the Standing Committee on Home Affairs and withdrawn; the Bharatiya Nyaya (Second) Sanhita Bill was introduced on 12 December 2023 [2].
  • The Lok Sabha passed it on 20 December 2023 and the Rajya Sabha on 21 December 2023; the President's assent was dated 25 December 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023) [1][5].
  • The BNS and the companion Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam came into effect on 1 July 2024 [3].
  • The BNS has 358 sections in 20 chapters; it adds 20 offences, drops 19 IPC provisions, raises imprisonment for 33 offences and fines for 83, introduces mandatory minimum punishment for 23 and community service for six [5].
  • It does not carry over the IPC sedition provision (Section 124A) and adds Section 152, "Act endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India"; it adds organised crime, terrorism, and murder or grievous hurt by a group on grounds of race, caste or community [1][2][3][5].
  • It retains the marital rape exception and omits IPC Section 377 [2].
  • Under the companion procedure code, the permitted period of police custody can extend up to 90 days, against a 15-day limit under Section 167(2) of the CrPC [3].

Why

Reasons given by those who did it

  • Home Minister Amit Shah said during passage that the Sanhitas represented laws "framed by Indians, for Indians" [3].
  • Mr Shah said the procedure code takes a "victim-centric" approach with tighter timelines for completion of trials [3].
  • The Union government reasoned that Section 152 criminalises treason (deshdroh) rather than sedition (rajdroh), and that criticising the government is no longer an offence (as reported in a critique in The Wire) [4].

Criticism of that reasoning

  • The Wire authors argue that the BNS does not meet its decolonisation aim, as it retains offences with colonial roots, expands police powers and creates vaguely defined offences; they say Section 152 is unclear compared with Section 124A [4].
  • PRS notes that the BNS does not consider Justice Verma Committee recommendations on marital rape and gender-neutral rape, and that several offences overlap with special laws with different penalties [2].

Benefits and concerns

Benefits (2)

  • Community service as a punishment for minor offences.Introduced for six offences [5]; The Indian Express notes that three-fourths of India's prison population are undertrials and that community service can keep first-time and minor offenders out of prison, though the BNS does not define it [3].
  • Separate recognition of group murder on grounds of race, caste or community.Clause 103 of the BNS; the Supreme Court in 2018 had directed the Centre to consider a separate law for lynching [3].

Concerns (3)

  • Longer police custody under the companion procedure code.The Indian Express reports that Clause 187(3) of the BNSS allows police custody of up to 90 days; the CrPC limit of 15 days was meant to curtail the likelihood of custodial torture and forced confessions [3].
  • Scope of Section 152 and continued retention of the marital rape exception.PRS states that the provision on endangering sovereignty may have retained aspects of sedition and that the marital rape exception is retained [2]; The Wire says the standards under Section 152 are unclear [4].
  • Overlap with special laws.PRS notes that several offences overlap with special laws that carry different penalties or procedures, which may lead to multiple charges [2].

Evidence points

+3.5
points, mean of two scorers (scale −25 to +25)
+3 to +4
range between the two scorers' totals
Low confidence
1 criterion where scorers differ
ReachHow many people did the action materially affect?
Mean +0.5A 0B +1
Outcome evidenceDo official or independent data show the intended result (or its opposite), compared with the era baseline and peers?
Mean 0.0A 0B 0
Cost and sustainabilityIs the fiscal cost proportionate, and is the effect durable?
Mean +0.5A +1B 0
Process and rightsWas it made with debate, consultation and legal soundness, and did it respect rights and court rulings?
Mean −0.5A −1B 0
DeliveryWas it implemented as announced, on time and at scale?
Mean +3.0A +4B +2Scorers differ

Positive meanNegative meanScorer AScorer B

Scorer A. Too recent for outcome data; committee review occurred but critics cite longer police custody, retained marital rape exception and vague Section 152.

Scorer B. Removes sedition and adds community service, but critics note vague new offences and longer police custody; no outcome data yet.

Context used when scoring

Era baseline
The IPC of 1860 had been in force for over 160 years with piecemeal amendments, and courts had decriminalised some offences such as adultery and consensual same-sex intercourse.
Lag before outcomes show
3 years
Uncertainty
Low confidence. Scorer totals are +4 and +3. How uncertainty is shown.

In depth

The BNS replaces the Indian Penal Code of 1860. PRS describes it as largely retaining IPC provisions while adding some offences, removing offences struck down by courts and raising some penalties. It came into force together with a new procedure code and evidence law.

The government described the reform as replacing colonial-era laws with laws framed by Indians. It stated that the procedure code would be victim-centric and set tighter trial timelines. Critics, including the authors of one analysis in The Wire, argue that the BNS keeps or expands state powers and does not resolve long-standing criticisms such as the marital rape exception. The new Section 152 replaces the word sedition; commentators disagree on how far its standard differs.

Because the code came into force in July 2024, little outcome data exist. This entry therefore records design features and stated reasons, and its confidence is low. It does not assess whether prosecution or conviction rates have changed.

Sources

  1. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text, Act No. 45 of 2023)
    Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of IndiaPrimary

Last reviewed .Report an error orchallenge a score.

Related actions

  • ImplementedJPLaw, Judiciary & Rights

    Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978

    Amendment reversing several Emergency-era changes: narrower Emergency grounds, fixed limits on preventive detention, and removal of property from the fundamental rights.

    Evidence points +16.5 (range +16.0 to +17.0)

  • ImplementedJPLaw, Judiciary & Rights

    Shah Commission of Inquiry into Emergency excesses 1977

    The Janata government appointed Justice J. C. Shah in May 1977 to inquire into Emergency-era conduct; special courts to try the findings were later held not legally constituted.

    Evidence points −4.0 (range −5.0 to −3.0)

  • ImplementedINCLaw, Judiciary & Rights

    Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and Hindu Succession Act 1956

    Parliament codified Hindu marriage, divorce and inheritance law in 1955-56, replacing a draft code with separate Acts; daughters' coparcenary rights followed only in 2005.

    Evidence points +14.0 (range +13.0 to +15.0)