By replacing laws enacted during British rule, Parliament sought to create a legal framework better suited to India’s constitutional values and contemporary needs. Whether this objective has been fully achieved remains a matter of continuing legal and academic debate. The reforms undoubtedly represent a major departure from the past, but implementation remains the greatest test.
Zainab Jahan Ara
On July 1, 2024, India embarked on one of the most significant legal transformations since Independence by replacing the colonial-era criminal law framework with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). Introduced with the promise of delivering a justice system that is modern, victim-centric, and technology-driven, the new criminal laws sought to move beyond the colonial philosophy of punishment towards a framework rooted in efficient and accessible justice.
One year into their implementation, it is both timely and necessary to ask a fundamental question: Have these reforms transformed the criminal justice system in practice, or has the change remained largely legislative?
The reforms undoubtedly represent a major departure from the past. The recognition of electronic evidence as primary evidence in appropriate cases, the promotion of digital investigations, mandatory forensic examination for serious offences, statutory timelines for investigation, and greater emphasis on victim rights reflect an effort to align criminal law with the realities of the twenty-first century. These measures have the potential to reduce delays, improve transparency, and strengthen public confidence in the administration of justice.
Equally important is the broader objective of decolonising India’s criminal justice system. By replacing laws enacted during British rule, Parliament sought to create a legal framework better suited to India’s constitutional values and contemporary needs. Whether this objective has been fully achieved remains a matter of continuing legal and academic debate.
The first year has also exposed the challenges that inevitably accompany structural reform. Police officers, prosecutors, judges, and lawyers have had to familiarise themselves with an entirely new statutory framework. Differences in interpretation, limited institutional preparedness, and unequal technological capacity across States have affected the pace and consistency of implementation.
Infrastructure continues to be the greatest test of these reforms. Digital justice cannot succeed without reliable internet connectivity, modern forensic laboratories, secure electronic record systems, and continuous professional training. The law may mandate technological integration, but meaningful implementation requires sustained public investment.
Recent assessments indicate that several States and Union Territories have made substantial progress in implementing the new criminal laws, while others continue to strengthen institutional capacity. The overall trend reflects steady progress, but also demonstrates that implementation remains uneven across the country.
Legal reform has also generated healthy constitutional debate. Questions concerning procedural safeguards, the scope of certain offences, police powers, and the balance between effective law enforcement and individual liberties are now finding their way into courtrooms. Such judicial scrutiny is essential in a constitutional democracy, ensuring that the promise of efficient justice does not come at the expense of fundamental rights.
The first year of implementation has also witnessed important judicial interventions that are shaping the interpretation of the new criminal laws. In Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2025), the Supreme Court held that notices under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) cannot be served through electronic platforms such as WhatsApp or email, emphasizing that procedural safeguards affecting personal liberty under Article 21 must be strictly followed. The ruling reaffirmed that technological advancement cannot dilute statutory protections available to an accused.
Similarly, in Rahil & Anr. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2025), the Supreme Court reiterated that electronic evidence, including Call Detail Records (CDRs), must satisfy the statutory requirements governing admissibility. The Court refused to sustain a conviction based on uncertified electronic records, reinforcing that while the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam strengthens the role of digital evidence, fairness, authenticity, and procedural compliance remain indispensable to a criminal trial.
Looking ahead, the focus must shift from legislative enactment to institutional excellence. Continuous judicial education, specialised police training, stronger forensic infrastructure, greater public legal awareness, and periodic legislative review will determine whether these reforms fulfil their intended purpose. The reported move towards integrating Artificial Intelligence into aspects of criminal justice administration further underscores the need to combine technological innovation with safeguards for fairness, transparency, and due process.
The first year of India’s new criminal laws should not be viewed as the end of reform, but as the beginning of a long process of institutional transformation. Laws, however progressive, cannot deliver justice on their own. Their true success lies in fair implementation, constitutional fidelity, and the confidence they inspire among ordinary citizens.
As India continues this transition, the measure of success will not be how many statutes have changed, but whether justice becomes faster, fairer, and more accessible for every person who enters the criminal justice system.
The writer is a law graduate
za**************@***il.com