New Delhi: The Standing Committee on Home Affairs, which scrutinised the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 Bill, has recommended that Section 497 of IPC relating to adultery should be retained in the proposed law.
The BNS seeks to repeal the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.
In its report on Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Bill, the panel has said that the institution of marriage is considered sacred in Indian society and that there is a need to safeguard its sanctity. “For the sake of protecting the institution of marriage, this section should be retained in the Sanhita by making it gender neutral,” it said.
The 28-member Parliamentary panel headed by BJP leader Brijlal, which scrutinised the three laws — Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita and the Bharatiya Sakshya — that will replace the IPC, the Criminal Procedure Code, and the Indian Evidence Act, tabled the reports in Parliament Monday.
Union Home Minister Amit Shah introduced the three bills in the Lok Sabha on 11 August to overhaul the criminal justice system in the country.
The panel has also reccommended to the government to reintroduce and to retain Section 377 of the IPC — dealing with unnatural sex against the order of nature — in the BNS, 2023 Bill. It was deleted in the proposed law.
The committee feels that “to align with the objectives stated in the BNS’ statement of objects and reasons, which inter-alia highlights the move towards gender-neutral offences, it is mandatory to reintroduce and retain the section 377 of the IPC.”
The BNS has proposed several new changes such as removing the offence of sedition, defining terrorism and organised crime, specifying separate penalty for murder committed by five or more people on specified grounds. These include race, caste, sex, place of birth, language, or personal belief. Each offender will be punishable with imprisonment between seven years and life, or death.
The BNS has merged overlapping sections of the IPC, simplified it and now consists of 356 sections as against 511 sections in the existing IPC. The proposed law has also repealed 18 sections of IPC.
Dissent over Hindi title of the proposed law
While non-BJP members of the panel had raised concerns over the Hindi title — Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — of the proposed law on the ground that it may be in violation of Article 348 of the Constitution, the Committee in its report has noted that the text of the Sanhita is in English.
The Union home ministry had submitted before the parliamentary panel that Article 348 of the Constitution states that the authoritative texts of all Acts passed by Parliament shall be in English. “The Committee is satisfied with the response of the Ministry and holds that the name given to the proposed legislation is not in violation of Article 348 of the Constitution of India,” it says.
Eight members of the panel — Congress leaders Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, Ravneet Singh, Digvijaya Singh, P. Chidambaram; Trinamool Congress’ Derek O’ Brien and Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar; DMK’s Dayanidhi Maran and N.R. Elango — have given their dissent note on the Hindi title of the bill.
In his note of dissent, Congress’ Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury and Digvijaya Singh said that using language, which is deliberately exclusionary for the title, cannot be justified and usage of Sanskritised Hindi goes against Article 348 of the Constitution.
Trinamool Congress’ Derek O’ Brien, in his dissent note, said, “The names of these bills being in Hindi is not suitable for the whole of the country. This can not only be called Hindi imposition but is also unconstitutional. Article 348 of the Constitution mandates that English language be used in Acts and Bills.”
The two DMK leaders also dissented to the Hindi title of IPC. “These bills will further change the federal relationship and structure between the Union and the State. As you are aware, India is a Union of States — states which speak different languages i.e., languages other than Hindi. On the other hand, except for a few words, the body of these Bills is in English, but the title of the Bill is in Hindi which is violative of Article 348,” Maran said in his dissent note.
Abolishing death penalty left ‘for govt to consider’
The BNS has increased the number of crimes, which can attract the death penalty from 11 to 15. During their submissions before the parliamentary panel, domain experts had deliberated at length about the need to abolish the death penalty.
In its report, the panel said that after considering the submissions regarding the death penalty, it has understood that “the reason for a passionate argument against death penalty is that the judicial system can be fallible and to prevent an innocent person from being wrongly sentenced to death.”
The matter may be left for the government to consider, the panel recommended.
Definition of mental illness be changed to unsound mind
The committee has recommended that in Clause 22 in BNS — that states that nothing is an offence, which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of mental illness, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law — the definition of mental illness should be changed to “unsound mind.”
“The Committee is of the view that mere medical insanity cannot be a ground for acquittal of the accused and legal insanity is required to be proved for claiming a valid defence. However, the term mental illness is too wide in its import in comparison to unsound mind, as it appears to include even mood swings or voluntary intoxication within its ambit,” the report states.
“The Committee accordingly recommends that the word ‘mental illness’ in this Sanhita may be changed to ‘unsound mind’ wherever it occurs, as the present one can create problems during the trial stage as an accused person can simply show that he was under the influence of alcohol or drugs during the time of the commission of crime and he cannot be prosecuted even if he has committed the crime without intoxication.”
On several other changes proposed in the BNS such as deleting the term “sedition” from criminal law, the panel has complimented the government and said that it is a “very progressive development.”
The panel has also recommended the punishment of 7 years from sub-clause (2) of Clause 101 of BNS may be deleted.
This sub-clause provides that when a murder is committed by a group of five or more persons acting in concert on the ground of race, caste or community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief or any other ground, each member shall be punished with death or with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
Eight members of the panel have also given their dissent on the poor drafting of the proposed law and several other provisions of the BNS Bill.
The panel has also recommended the punishment of 7 years from sub-clause (2) of Clause 101 of BNS may be deleted.
(Edited by Tony Rai)