'From Legislation To Practice' MNLU Nagpur Hosts National Conference On India's New Criminal Laws

Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur has successfully organized a one-day National Conference titled “From Legislation to Practice: Assessing the Implementation of New Criminal Laws” on April 5, 2025. The event witnessed the participation of eminent jurists, members of the Bar and Bench, law enforcement officers, and legal scholars from across the country. The conference served as a timely academic platform for rigorous dialogue on the implementation of the three landmark legislations: the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), which collectively seek to redefine India's criminal justice system.

The inaugural ceremony commenced with a formal welcome address by Prof. (Dr.) Vijender Kumar, Vice-Chancellor, MNLU Nagpur, who emphasized the pressing need for transitioning from the colonial framework of criminal law to a jurisprudence that reflects the constitutional aspirations of modern India. In his inaugural remarks, he stated: “The three new criminal codes represent more than legislative reform; they are a historic attempt to harmonize procedural and substantive criminal law with the rights-centric framework of the Indian Constitution. However, the real challenge lies in ensuring that these reforms do not remain only on paper but translate meaningfully into practice.”

Prof. (Dr.) Vijender Kumar, in his address, stressed the need to focus not just on the enactment of new criminal laws but on their real-world application. He pointed out critical gaps in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, especially its failure to link general and special laws, such as the connection between Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act and IPC provisions on bigamy. He also highlighted concerns regarding maintenance and legitimacy of children, citing a real-life case involving posthumous childbirth that raised complex legal questions. Prof. Kumar called for aligning criminal law reforms with India's social realities and urged students to assess these changes through a practical and inclusive lens. Prof. Kumar also highlighted the role of legal academia in not just studying the law, but in actively contributing to the legal ecosystem by examining the practical bottlenecks in enforcement and interpretation.

Prof. (Dr.) Srikrishna Deva Rao, Guest of Honour and Vice-Chancellor, NALSAR University of Law, drawing on his deep academic and institutional experience, highlighted the historical evolution of India's criminal laws, acknowledging the enduring legacy of the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Indian Evidence Act. He noted that past amendments were often reactive, whereas the introduction of the three new codes reflects a more integrated and decolonised approach. Welcoming reforms such as gender-neutral language, community service as punishment, and enhanced use of technology, he stressed that these changes aim to modernise the system while upholding constitutional morality. He also acknowledged the role of private entities in supporting judicial digitisation and underlined the need to address existing drafting gaps. Prof. Rao concluded by encouraging students to engage critically with the reforms and contribute to shaping a more responsive and principled criminal justice system.

Justice (Retd.) V. S. Sirpurkar, Chief Guest and Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, shared profound reflections from his extensive legal career, recalling his journey from an advocate in 1968 to a Supreme Court judge in 2007. He fondly remembered his pivotal role in conceptualising the National Law University in Nagpur, describing the city as the “navel of India” for its historical centrality. Emphasizing the ethical dimensions of legal practice, he drew a powerful analogy from the Ramayana, warning against the temptation of unethical shortcuts.

Referring to the episode of the golden deer, he remarked that “the moment one thinks it is acceptable to breach ethical standards, one begins to lose their way in the profession.”

Justice Sirpurkar concluded with a message on integrity and hard work as the foundation of the profession and formally inaugurated the conference with grace and reverence.

The event also marked the release of the latest issue of Contemporary Law Review. The release was conducted in the august presence of Justice V. S. Sirpurkar, Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, and Prof. (Dr.) Srikrishna Deva Rao, Vice-Chancellor, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad., Prof. (Dr.) Vijender Kumar, Vice-Chancellor, MNLU Nagpur and Dr. Vivek Ghavane, Registrar of the University, to unveil the journal. Members of the editorial board comprising Prof. Trisha Mittal, Dr. Neetu Kumari, Dr. Sushant Waghmare, and Dr. Divita Kothekar, were present on stage for their continued commitment to fostering legal research.

PLENARY SESSION 1: ASSESSING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 (BNSS)

The first plenary session focused on Assessing the Implementation of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Eminent speakers for this session included Senior Advocate Mr. P.V. Dinesh, Advocate Nipun Saxena, and Shri Harssh A. Poddar, Superintendent of Police, Nagpur Rural.

Sr. Adv. P.V. Dinesh offered a sharp and critical analysis of the new criminal law reforms, particularly the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. He questioned whether the changes are substantive or merely cosmetic, stating: “Nomenclature does not alter law; substance is the most important.”

He raised constitutional concerns regarding Section 531 (Repeal & Savings), especially its ambiguity on pending cases and retrospective application—warning it may violate Articles 20 and 21. On Section 187 (Remand), he criticised the removal of the 15-day custody cap and allowing magistrates without territorial jurisdiction to authorise remand, which could enable forum shopping and arbitrary detention. He flagged Sections 223–225 for requiring both pre- and post-cognizance notices in private complaints, calling it duplicative and delay-inducing.

He argued that the new laws are largely a repackaging of the colonial framework, remarking: “This is not a 'Bharatiya' system, nor is it anything 'Bhartiya' — it is still Macaulay's legal framework, only repackaged with new terminology. This is nothing more than old wine in a new bottle.”

In his address, Mr. Harssh A. Poddar, Superintendent of Police, Nagpur Rural, provided a grounded, practical perspective on the criminal law reforms, focusing on challenges faced by law enforcement in implementing procedural changes like E-FIRs, forensic integration, and remand timelines. He emphasized the gap between legal theory and on-ground realities, particularly highlighting issues like limited access to e-signatures, ambiguities in preliminary inquiry requirements, and the need for differentiated procedures based on an accused's criminal history. He supported mandatory forensic investigation in serious cases but stressed that India's current forensic infrastructure is inadequate for modern crimes like cyber and financial fraud. Praising innovations like E-Sakshya and Maharashtra's scrutiny committees for sexual offences, he called for greater police capacity and judicial oversight. On anticipatory bail and remand periods, he advocated for balancing investigation needs with rights protections, urging a shift away from overly soft approaches that embolden repeat offenders.

The address by Advocate Nipun Saxena provided a detailed critique of the procedural changes introduced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), warning that while the reforms aim to modernise criminal procedure, they often introduce ambiguities that favour the defence and weaken the prosecution. He highlighted technical issues with the E-Sakshya app, lack of forensic infrastructure, and delays in furnishing medical and forensic reports as key implementation hurdles. Saxena also raised concerns over expanded police discretion in preliminary inquiries—undoing safeguards laid down in Lalita Kumari—and pointed out unequal treatment of accused persons in cases initiated via private complaint versus police chargesheets, creating potential Article 14 violations. He flagged ambiguities around discharge applications, default bail, and supplementary chargesheets, and criticised unrealistic timelines for judgment delivery, especially when compounded by absentee investigating officers. On sanction for prosecution of public servants, he noted the controversial “deemed sanction” clause, which could significantly impact corruption cases. Concluding his talk, Saxena remarked that BNSS has become a “Disneyland for defence counsel,” due to its procedural loopholes and lack of clarity, ultimately undermining the very justice system it seeks to reform.Top of Form

PLENARY SESSION 2: “ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 (BNS) AND BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023 (BSA)”

Advocate Nandita Rao delivered a nuanced critique of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, examining its philosophical, constitutional, and legislative implications, particularly focusing on sedition, sexual autonomy, and drafting quality. She traced the colonial roots of sedition under Section 124A IPC and critiqued its reappearance in Section 152 of BNS, warning that the vague term “subversive activities” could criminalize dissent, satire, or protest, thereby endangering democratic expression. Commending the shift from “government” to “State,” she emphasized that dissent against the government should not be equated with being anti-national, and questioned the necessity of reintroducing sedition-like provisions when the UAPA already addresses threats to national integrity. Rao also criticized the complete repeal of Section 377 IPC without addressing male victims of sexual violence, highlighting a glaring legislative oversight. On Section 69, criminalizing false promises to marry, she pointed out its conceptual conflict with existing rape laws and cautioned against using criminal law to enforce Victorian morality, urging that sexual autonomy be recognized as a constitutional right. Through a feminist lens, she stressed the need to distinguish exploitation from autonomy and advocated for thoughtful, rights-based drafting rooted in societal evolution.

Advocate Renuka Sirpurkar, practising at the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), focused on the practical implementation challenges posed by the new criminal laws. She pointed out that despite claims of simplification, the structure of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) often mirrors the colonial codes they intend to replace. She stressed that the changes have not been adequately communicated to the lower judiciary and police, resulting in confusion and inconsistency in application. She noted that the overlap between certain provisions and the excessive reliance on state discretion could increase the burden on the judiciary. She also expressed concern over the lack of uniform training modules for legal practitioners and police officials, which could hinder the effective implementation of the new laws. Drawing from specific examples, she demonstrated how ambiguities in the definition of key terms like “community service,” “mob lynching,” or “terrorist act” could lead to inconsistent interpretations across jurisdictions.

Shri Lohit Matani, Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone 1, Nagpur City Police, provided valuable insights from the law enforcement perspective. He explained how the police force is preparing to adapt to the new procedural framework under the BNSS and BSA. He acknowledged the positive steps taken to formalise procedures related to digital evidence, stating that the codification of digital forensics will improve the integrity of investigations. He also welcomed the provision for zero FIR and victim-centric mechanisms. However, he expressed apprehension regarding vague and subjective provisions such as Section 69, which criminalises false promises to marry, noting that without clear evidentiary standards, such provisions could be misused or inconsistently enforced. He shared recent case experiences involving mob lynching and stressed the urgent need for clear SOPs and capacity building among investigating officers to handle sensitive and communal offences. Overall, he urged a collaborative effort between police, judiciary, and academia to ensure meaningful implementation of the new criminal law framework.

Shri Vivek Ghavane delivering the Vote of Thanks, highlighted that the repackaging of legal provisions in the new criminal laws opens avenues for fresh judicial interpretation and jurisprudential growth. He expressed deep gratitude to Justice V. S. Sirpurkar for his presence and foundational role in the University's establishment, and to Prof. (Dr.) Srikrishna Deva Rao, Guest of Honour, for his visionary inputs guiding future legal reforms.

The Conference not only provided a robust academic exchange but also laid the groundwork for further research collaborations, policy recommendations, and feedback mechanisms to assist the government and judiciary in implementing the new laws with greater efficacy and accountability.