CIVICUS discusses India’s new criminal laws with Aditya Shrivastava, a human rights lawyer, civil society activist and researcher with the Contested Democracy Platform at Södertörn University in Sweden.

In 2024, the government of India introduced three new criminal laws with the stated aim of improving and decolonising its justice system. While these laws include some positive changes, such as victim-centric provisions and increased use of technology, they largely retain the content of the colonial-era codes they’re replacing and expand police powers, introduce vaguely defined offences and extend detention periods. Inadequate infrastructure and systemic barriers may also limit the effectiveness of any improvements.

What are the key changes in India’s criminal laws?

One major change is the significant expansion of police detention powers. Previously, a person could be held in police custody for up to 15 days without trial; this has now been extended to 60 or even 90 days, far longer than in most democratic countries.

The new laws also introduce vaguely defined offences, such as spreading ‘false and misleading’ information that could threaten India’s sovereignty or security. The lack of clear definitions leaves room for broad interpretation, allowing authorities significant discretion in determining what speech is legal.

Additionally, the laws criminalise actions that ‘threaten the sovereignty and integrity’ of India, echoing the previous sedition laws. This vague wording could be used to suppress criticism or restrict free speech. This is particularly concerning given several ongoing cases where human rights groups are falsely accused under similarly ambiguous foreign funding laws.

The changes also incorporate elements from existing state laws and anti-terrorism acts, which have faced criticism for their broad scope. Authorities can now seize the property of those declared fugitives without due process, increasing government control at the expense of fundamental protections like fair trials. They can also try the accused in absentia, which contradicts internationally accepted principles of a fair trial, the right to be heard and natural justice.

While the government’s stated goal in overhauling criminal laws was to modernise the justice system and replace colonial-era legislation, aiming for more efficient law enforcement and victim-centred justice, many provisions raise serious concerns about civil liberties and fundamental rights.

What new powers do these laws grant to the police?

The laws significantly expand police powers without incorporating sufficient safeguards against misuse. For instance, a person can now be detained simply for resisting police instructions, even if they haven’t committed a crime. This low threshold raises the risk of arbitrary detentions, as witnessed during protests in 2019 and 2020 against the anti-minority citizenship law, when authorities detained numerous protesters without charges.

Extended detention periods are particularly concerning. Without adequate procedural safeguards, prolonged detention raises the risk of abuse, particularly in a legal system already struggling with arbitrary arrests, police brutality and custodial violence.

Public trust in law enforcement isn’t built through expanded powers but through ensuring fair and transparent exercise of authority. Without proper oversight, these expanded powers will only make things worse.

What are the implications for civil society and excluded groups?

These laws are likely to be used against activists, journalists and government critics. The provisions are vague and open-ended, similar to the previous sedition law that was frequently misused to silence dissent. While the Supreme Court had suspended the sedition provision, the new laws effectively reintroduce it under different names.

Phrases such as ‘encouraging separatist movements’ or ‘jeopardising unity’ lack clear definition and could be interpreted to criminalise peaceful protests or journalism. The application of these laws depends entirely on authorities’ discretion, making them susceptible to misuse.

The new laws also fail to address the disproportionate targeting of excluded groups in mob violence. The law equates the punishment for mob lynching with murder, but it overlooks the reality that mob violence is not a regular crime against individuals but rather one targeted at excluded groups, with religious minorities, Dalits and transgender people often the primary victims. It suggests their protection is not being prioritised.

Legal uncertainty has already led to widespread self-censorship. Even when cases don’t result in convictions, the mere threat of legal action often silences critics. The new laws risk intensifying the culture of fear, particularly among human rights defenders and excluded groups.

How helpful are the laws’ victim-centric provisions in addressing systemic justice issues?

The government has highlighted the victim-centric approach as a key justification for these reforms. For example, the new laws formalise an approach known as Zero FIR, which allows complaints to be filed at any police station regardless of where the crime occurred. While courts had previously recognised this principle, it is now codified in law.

Another improvement is the requirement for victims/complainants to receive updates on the progress of an investigation. However, the law doesn’t really enhance the rights of victims/complainants because, although it ensures they are more efficiently informed about the status of the case, this information in itself is useless in the absence of mechanisms for grievances to be redressed.

A truly victim-centred approach would require deeper systemic changes, such as reducing court delays, addressing police biases and ensuring equal access to legal support – issues that disproportionately affect excluded groups. For these reforms to be effective, they must be accompanied by investment in better legal aid, improved police training and comprehensive institutional reforms, rather than superficial adjustments.

How do the reforms align with international human rights standards?

These legal changes raise significant concerns about India’s commitment to international human rights standards. Many new provisions conflict with principles of fair trial and due process, which are internationally accepted norms and core principles of India’s legal system. The laws’ vague wording enables arbitrary enforcement, shifting from a ‘rule of law’ approach to a ‘rule by law’ model that prioritises state control over individual rights.

These concerns are substantiated by previous criticism from international bodies, including United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteurs and the Financial Action Task Force, regarding India’s use of broad laws to suppress dissent. The extension of pretrial detention is particularly problematic given India’s failure to ratify the UN Convention Against Torture.

Ultimately, reform should balance efficiency with fairness. While streamlining procedures is important, it shouldn’t compromise individual rights and freedoms. The system must uphold fairness, prevent abuse and avoid political misuse of laws. Reforms should protect both victims and the accused, delivering justice without harm or discrimination.