Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
India’s transition from the Indian Penal Code to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was presented as a historic legal reform aimed at modernising the country’s criminal justice system. Supporters described the move as a decisive break from colonial-era legislation, while critics questioned whether the reforms represented substantive transformation or simply legislative repackaging. Beyond the political debate, however, one question remains central: can criminal justice improve merely by rewriting legal texts without addressing the institutional weaknesses that shape everyday policing and judicial reality?
The replacement of colonial terminology carries symbolic significance. Laws framed during British rule were designed primarily to maintain administrative control rather than democratic accountability. Revisiting that legal architecture therefore reflects an understandable desire to align criminal law with independent India’s constitutional identity. Yet symbolism alone cannot resolve the structural problems that continue to burden the justice system.
The real crisis within India’s criminal justice framework is not simply outdated language. It lies in delayed trials, investigative inefficiency, overcrowded prisons, inconsistent forensic infrastructure, weak witness protection, and severe judicial backlog. For millions of citizens, the experience of justice is shaped less by the wording of legal codes and more by the slow and unequal functioning of institutions responsible for implementing them.
This is where the challenge surrounding the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita becomes significant. Legal reform creates expectations of meaningful institutional change. However, public trust cannot be restored through renaming exercises alone if procedural realities remain largely unchanged. Citizens judge justice systems not by legislative announcements, but by whether investigations are fair, trials are timely, and accountability mechanisms function effectively.
One of the most debated aspects of the new criminal laws has been the government’s emphasis on “Indianisation” and decolonisation. While removing colonial influence from legal structures is an important political and intellectual project, decolonisation requires more than symbolic language. Colonial policing cultures, excessive pretrial detention, coercive investigative methods, and unequal access to legal resources continue to shape the justice experience of many Indians. Unless institutional practices evolve alongside legal reforms, the deeper colonial legacy may survive despite legislative restructuring.
The implementation challenge is equally important. India’s criminal justice system operates within an environment of enormous administrative pressure. Police forces remain understaffed in many regions, courts continue to face overwhelming case burdens, and forensic resources vary sharply across states. Introducing major legal changes without adequate training, procedural clarity, and institutional preparedness risks creating confusion rather than efficiency.
Another concern involves the widening gap between legislative ambition and implementation capacity. New legal provisions may appear transformative on paper, but laws acquire meaning only through consistent and transparent enforcement. If implementation becomes selective or uneven, public skepticism toward reform efforts may deepen further.
The reforms also arrive during a period when public debates surrounding criminal justice have become increasingly emotional and politicised. Social media trials, television outrage cycles, and demands for instant punishment often influence perceptions of justice more strongly than legal procedure itself. In such an atmosphere, strengthening due process and institutional accountability becomes more important than introducing rhetorical narratives of toughness or speed.
At the same time, dismissing all reform efforts outright would also be intellectually simplistic. Legal systems must evolve with changing technological, social, and security realities. Cybercrime, organised digital fraud, cross-border criminal networks, and new forms of public disorder require updated legal responses. The question is therefore not whether reform was necessary, but whether legislative change is being matched by institutional transformation.
If India genuinely seeks a modern criminal justice system, reforms must extend beyond statutes toward capacity-building itself. Judicial appointments need expansion, forensic infrastructure requires modernization, police reforms can no longer remain politically postponed, and trial efficiency must improve significantly. Legal literacy among citizens and procedural transparency within investigations are equally necessary for rebuilding public confidence.
Ultimately, the success of India’s new criminal laws will not depend on whether old colonial names disappear from legal textbooks. It will depend on whether ordinary citizens experience justice as faster, fairer, and more accountable than before. Democracies are strengthened not by symbolic transformation alone, but by institutions capable of delivering constitutional justice in practice.
Author Bio:
Zobiya Bhat is a student and independent writer from Kashmir who writes on justice , governance , and the social consequence of institutional failure .
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.