On 12 December, revised criminal law bills were introduced in the Lok Sabha, viz. Bharatiya Nyaya (Second) Sanhita Bill, 2023, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha (Second) Sanhita Bill, 2023, and Bharatiya Sakshya (Second) Bill, 2023. This document highlights the key changes proposed.
Click to explore : Research Brief Annotated Comparison Editorials & Interviews Research Brief Bharatiya Nyaya(Second) Sanhita Bill, 2023 & Bharatiya Sakshya(Second) Bill, 2023 & Bharatiya Sakshya(Second) Bill,2023: Analysis of Key…
This article examines sui generis powers under the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill 2024, arguing that these processes vest punitive powers. The operation of such processes outside the regular criminal process subverts fair trial and due process requirements.
This piece critiques the Rajasthan High Court ruling that disrobing does not amount to rape. The piece highlights the significant issues in judicial interpretation of the difference between ‘attempt to commit rape’ and ‘assault to outrage the modesty of a woman’ in Indian law. It argues that current judicial interpretations of what constitutes an attempt to rape are inconsistent and problematic, particularly in cases involving ‘disrobing’. It considers various factors from judicial precedent to propose a new, more comprehensive test for courts to determine attempted rape.
In the context of the Delhi Excise Policy case, this article problematises the practice of filing multiple supplementary chargesheets. It explains how this practice amounts to an illegal misuse of investigative powers and the effects of it on the accused person’s rights in a criminal trial.
This article examines the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1986 (PASA), highlighting the lack of constitutionally acceptable thresholds in the legislation to guide the exercise of preventive detention powers.
Drawing from Douglas Husak’s ‘theory of criminalisation’, this article argues that current criminal law is insufficient to deal with gender-based crimes in times of conflict in India and suggests reforms.
The Supreme Court has recently reserved its judgement on a Madras High Court decision in S. Harish v. Inspector of Police quashing proceedings against a 28-year-old man accused of watching child pornography. The ruling in S. Harish has sparked debate over whether watching child pornography falls within the purview of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) and sets a harmful precedent as it concludes that watching and possessing child pornography is not illegal, thereby raising the potential increase in demand for such material and putting innocent children at risk of exploitation.
Three bills were introduced in the Lok Sabha that sought to repeal and replace the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the first installment, Project 39A has prepared the document comparing the proposed Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill, 2023 (BNS) with the current provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
Three bills were introduced in the Lok Sabha that sought to repeal and replace the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the third installment, Project 39A has prepared the document comparing the proposed Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the current provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Three bills were introduced in the Lok Sabha that sought to repeal and replace the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the second installment, Project 39A has prepared the document comparing the proposed Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023 with the current provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Episode 26 of the 39A Podcast discusses the recent Pune Porsche case where a 17-year-old allegedly caused the death of two hapless victims while driving rashly and under the influence. The case has made waves in the media due to reports of preferential treatment and manipulation of evidence. However, the case also invokes questions of Juvenile Justice law which are largely unaddressed by mainstream media. In this podcast, Anup Surendranath converses with child rights experts— Bharati Ali, Swagata Raha and Mahesh Menon, who bring decades of experience with the juvenile justice system and analyse the legal and procedural aspects of juvenile justice in India.
This article looks at the ‘Pune Porsche’ case and answers the questions – first, what exactly does the law lay down? Second, was the law followed in this case? Third, is the public outrage, though understandable, placed correctly in the demands being made – in terms of bail for the juvenile, as well as exploration of the ‘judicial waiver’ – the option to ‘treat the child as an adult’ in the judicial process?
This article dissects the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, highlighting the significant change of the judiciary’s stance on arrest protocols under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. It also highlights how this improved understanding has brought in more transparency while also safeguarding civil liberties.
On 26th January, the International Court of Justice issued an order on provisional measures in the case initiated by South Africa against Israel under the Genocide Convention. Following hearings on 11th and 12th January, the Court determined that provisional measures were necessary to safeguard the parties’ respective rights pending a final decision on the merits. The Court ruled in favor of South Africa, indicating six provisional measures against Israel. While there was near-unanimous support for the measures, with Judges Xue, Bhandari, and Nolte appending declarations to the order, Judge ad hoc Barak issued a Separate Opinion supporting certain measures, and Judge Sebutinde dissented, opposing all six measures.
Summary of arguments put forth by Israel on 12th January 2024 against South Africa’s Request for indication of provisional measures in the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel).
Summary of arguments put forth by Israel on 12th January 2024 against South Africa’s Request for indication of provisional measures in the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel).
On December 29, 2023, South Africa instituted legal proceedings against Israel at the International Court of Justice, asserting Israel’s breach of obligations under the Genocide Convention in relation to Palestinians in Gaza. In its application, South Africa has requested the ICJ to indicate provisional measures to ensure immediate relief in Gaza and protect the integrity of the ongoing legal proceedings. On January 11, 2024, South Africa made arguments on provisional measures as part of the first round of proceedings before the ICJ in this matter. This post briefly summarizes South Africa’s submissions.
This article probes the inconsistency in the Supreme Court’s professed commitment towards assessing reformation in capital sentencing against its reliance on life sentences excluding remission as a commuting sentence in death penalty cases.
Digital evidence has been growing in relevance over the past several years. Most recently, in the ‘Newsclick’ investigation there were several reports of devices of journalists being seized. This raises an important question: can the police under the garb of investigation force one to open their electronic devices. The article argues that the right against self-incrimination protects against such compulsion by demonstrating that unlocking of devices (whether by password or biometrics) amounts to giving testimony. The article goes further to ask what happens in case a person willingly or without compulsion opens their device. The article explores the possibility of tampering of digital evidence and social realities in India to argue that all the contents of one’s device cannot be attributed to a person merely by virtue of being on a person’s device.
The goal of this article is to ask, how do Courts judge whether or not the methodology through which a piece of evidence is presented is scientific or not (i.e. how does a Court make a determination about the foundational validity of scientific evidence)? What separates something like DNA evidence, in which our judicial system puts such high faith, from narco-analysis, which is generally deemed to be unreliable?
This post analyses the implications of the changes proposed to the provisions pertaining to the admissibility of electronic evidence under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Bill, 2023.