Comparative study of BNS and IPC

For decades, India's criminal law was anchored in a colonial legacy—the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, which was never truly meant to serve the Indian people. It was a legal framework drafted by British administrators to maintain control over the colony, not to deliver justice to its citizens. Though the IPC remained foundational and was periodically amended, it increasingly failed to reflect the realities of modern India—a nation shaped by constitutional ideals, democratic governance, digital transformation, and evolving societal norms.

In 2023, the Indian government took a landmark step by introducing the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, along with new versions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Evidence Act. This was not merely a renaming exercise but a comprehensive legal overhaul designed to make India's criminal justice system more accessible, accountable, efficient, and indigenous.

Need for a New Law

For over a century and a half, India's criminal justice system operated under the shadows of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860—a colonial-era law crafted not for justice, but for control. Drafted by Lord Macaulay in a vastly different socio-political context, the IPC reflected the needs of a colonial government to maintain order, not to deliver justice in the true sense of the term. While it has served as the backbone of India’s criminal jurisprudence for decades, the IPC had become outdated, verbose, and disconnected from the contemporary socio-legal landscape.

In an era marked by digital crimes, rising crimes against women, and demands for victim centric justice, India needed a modern, indigenous, and citizen-centric criminal code. This is where the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) steps in—not just as a replacement, but a reinvention of the criminal law framework.

Objective of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

The core objective of BNS is to Indianize criminal law, simplify its language, ensure speedy justice, and align it with the constitutional values of equity, justice, and dignity. It aims to replace archaic legal expressions with plain, understandable language, ensure timely investigation and trial, empower victims, and make justice more accessible.

BNS emphasizes a victim-centric approach, redefines offenses to address contemporary challenges, and streamlines procedures to reduce delays. It also seeks to decolonize Indian jurisprudence, giving it a more culturally rooted and forward-looking identity.

Key Changes Introduced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 brings with it a series of transformative changes that reshape the criminal justice framework of India. One of the most noticeable differences lies in the language of the law itself. The Indian Penal Code (IPC), being a 19th-century colonial statute, was drafted in archaic and legalistic English that was often inaccessible to the common citizen. In contrast, the BNS uses simplified and more Indianized language, aiming to make legal provisions more understandable and relatable to the average person.

The structural reform is also evident in the number of provisions. The IPC had 511 sections, many of which were overlapping or obsolete. The BNS consolidates and rationalizes these into 358 clauses, eliminating redundancy and streamlining the law for greater clarity and efficiency. One of the most symbolic changes is the repeal of the sedition law (Section 124A of the IPC), which was frequently misused to suppress dissent. It has been replaced with a more precise and constitutionally sound provision under Clause 150 of the BNS, which criminalizes acts against the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India—marking a clear move away from colonial thought control.

Another significant development is the explicit recognition of mob lynching as a distinct criminal offense under Clause 103—a social menace that had no direct legal recognition under the IPC. Similarly, the BNS introduces clear and focused provisions to tackle organized crime and terrorism, which were earlier only vaguely covered. This shows the BNS’s responsiveness to the security needs of a modern and digitally interconnected India.

The BNS also takes incremental steps toward gender neutrality. While certain crimes like rape remain gender-specific, many other offenses such as sexual harassment and voyeurism have been redefined to include all genders. Furthermore, the BNS introduces community service as a form of punishment for minor offenses, a progressive shift from the traditional punitive model to one that emphasizes rehabilitation.

In a major overhaul, victim rights have been brought to the forefront. Where the IPC gave minimal importance to victims, the BNS ensures that they are kept informed, have the right to be heard, and are integral to the judicial process. In another landmark reform, the BNS mandates timelines for criminal procedures—investigations must be completed within 90 days and trials within two years, as per Clause 254. This addresses the chronic problem of delays that plague Indian courts.

Finally, the BNS embraces the use of technology. Unlike the IPC, which barely acknowledged technological tools, the BNS promotes electronic filing of FIRs, digital trials, and the admissibility of electronic evidence, paving the way for a more modern and efficient criminal justice system.

Why These Changes Were Absent in the IPC

The absence of these reforms in the IPC was not accidental but structural. The colonial intent behind the IPC meant that it was designed to control subjects, not empower citizens. It emphasized state authority over individual liberty and paid little regard to human rights, equality, or justice. Additionally, the IPC was created in an age where technology was non existent, which explains its inability to deal with cybercrime, digital evidence, or globalized forms of organized crime.

The IPC also failed to keep pace with evolving societal values. Concepts such as gender justice, victim rights, and speedy trial were simply not part of the colonial imagination. Over time, the IPC grew increasingly outdated, leading to vague or overbroad provisions like the sedition law, which were open to misuse. Moreover, it offered no mechanisms to ensure time

bound justice, contributing to a massive backlog of cases and eroding public faith in the system.

Way Forward

While the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is a significant reform, its success depends on effective implementation. All stakeholders—police, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and judges—must receive thorough training to apply the new provisions properly. The judiciary needs to embrace the victim-centric and technology-driven aspects of the law to deliver true justice.

Equally important is upgrading technological infrastructure. As the BNS promotes digital tools like electronic FIRs and virtual trials, police stations and courts must have adequate hardware and connectivity. Without this, the law’s progressiveness will remain only theoretical.

Finally, the BNS should be treated as a living document, subject to regular review and improvement based on feedback from legal experts, civil society, and citizens. Public awareness campaigns are also essential to ensure people understand their rights and can effectively engage with the justice system.

Conclusion

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is more than a legal reform—it is a civilizational correction. By discarding the remnants of Macaulay’s colonial code and embracing an Indianized, inclusive, and future-ready criminal law, the nation is taking a bold step toward reclaiming its legal identity. But the real test of the BNS will not be in legislative halls or law books—it will be in courtrooms, police stations, and the lived experiences of ordinary citizens. A law’s greatness lies not in its intent but in its implementation. Let us hope that the BNS becomes the foundation for a just, humane, and efficient criminal justice system—one that serves the people of India, not rules over them.