From IPC to BNS: What Has Really Changed?

Introduction

For over 160 years, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) served as the backbone of India’s criminal justice system. Drafted in 1860 by Lord Macaulay during British rule, it laid down the legal definitions of crimes and punishments across the country. But on July 1, 2024, India entered a new legal era. The IPC, along with the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Indian Evidence Act, was replaced by three new criminal laws which is the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA). The government claimed these reforms were necessary to “decolonize” the justice system, modernize criminal law, and make it more citizen-centric. Yet, legal experts and practitioners continue to debate whether these new codes represent real transformation or just cosmetic revision.

So, what has truly changed in India’s criminal law? And more importantly, what hasn’t?

A Brief Context: Why Replace the IPC?

The Indian Penal Code (IPC), though comprehensive, reflected the values and priorities of a colonial administration, one that focused on control and punishment rather than justice and reform. Critics long argued that its language was outdated, certain offences were poorly defined, and the system failed to reflect India’s constitutional ideals of equality, liberty, and dignity. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, aims to address these shortcomings. It consolidates and reorganizes offences, introduces new crimes relevant to the digital age, and removes certain archaic provisions. The government has described it as a step toward a “citizen-friendly” and “technology-driven” criminal law framework.

But change in law is not just about rewriting statutes, it’s about redefining how justice is understood and delivered.

Structural Overhaul or Cosmetic Rearrangement?

At first glance, the BNS appears impressive: it reduces the number of sections from 511 in the IPC to 358. However, most of the reduction comes from merging or renumbering provisions rather than deleting obsolete ones. Many offences retain nearly identical wording.

For example:

●  Section 302 of IPC (Murder) is now Section 101 of BNS, almost word-for-word identical.

●  Section 375 (Rape) becomes Section 63, but with a crucial addition allowing for digital and electronic evidence recognition.

● Section 124A (Sedition) has been replaced by Section 152 (Acts endangering sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India), a change that seems significant but, as we’ll see, may not be.

Thus, while the BNS looks cleaner and more structured, the real question is whether it changes how offences are understood, prosecuted, or punished.

The Big Promises of Reform

The BNS introduces several new provisions that align with modern concerns and technological realities.

1.  Terrorism as a Standalone Offence

For the first time, terrorism has been explicitly defined within the Penal Code. Earlier, such crimes were primarily dealt with under special laws like the UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act). The BNS definition includes acts that threaten India’s unity, integrity, or public order through violence or coercion. This reflects the global trend of integrating counterterrorism into general criminal law, though concerns remain about potential misuse.

2.  Mob Lynching and Organized Crime

The BNS introduces provisions for mob lynching, organized crime, and petty organized offences which was a long demanded due to rising incidents of vigilantism. These additions acknowledge new forms of collective violence and aim to close gaps in the old law, which lacked specific categories for such offences.

3.  Crimes Against Women and Children

The new code expands the scope of sexual offences and enhances penalties for gang rape and crimes against minors. It also recognizes electronic communication as a mode through which offences can occur that is a necessary update for the digital age.

4.  Community Service as Punishment

For the first time, community service has been introduced as an alternative punishment for minor offences. This reflects a more reformative approach, recognizing that imprisonment is not always the best form of justice.

5.  Simplified and Modern Language

The BNS replaces colonial-era expressions like “India” with “Bharat,” “Government of India” with “Union Government,” and updates terms to make the text more accessible. It also integrates provisions for digital evidence, aligning with the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA).

These are progressive changes on paper. But the devil, as always, lies in the details.

The Sedition Debate: A Change in Name Only?

One of the most discussed aspects of the new law is the replacement of Section 124A (Sedition) with Section 152 (Acts endangering sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India). The government claimed that this move was meant to eliminate colonial-era misuse of sedition laws. However, many experts argue that the new section is merely a rebranding. It continues to criminalize speech or expression that could be interpreted as threatening national integrity. The wording “excites or attempts to excite secession, armed rebellion, or subversive activities” that remains broad enough to suppress dissent.

This raises concerns about whether the BNS truly represents decolonization or simply repackages colonial tools under modern labels. Without clear judicial interpretation, the line between legitimate criticism and criminal offence remains dangerously thin.

What Has Been Removed?

Some colonial relics have indeed been discarded:

●              Adultery (Section 497, IPC), which was already struck down by the Supreme Court in

Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), has not been retained.

●              Attempt to commit suicide (Section 309, IPC) has been omitted, aligning with evolving human rights standards.

●              Provisions related to unnatural offences (Section 377), already read down by Navtej Johar v. Union of India (2018), are gone too.

These omissions signal an effort to align criminal law with constitutional morality and judicial developments.

Continuities That Raise Questions

Despite the reform narrative, several issues remain untouched:

1.    Vague Offences: Provisions on obscenity, public nuisance, and “moral decency” continue to be loosely defined.

2.    Death Penalty: Retained for several offences, despite global shifts toward abolition.

3.    Police-Centric Approach: The structure of offences and investigation powers remains tilted in favor of enforcement agencies.

4.    Overcriminalization: Several offences that could be civil wrongs or regulatory breaches remain criminalized.

This suggests that while the law looks new, the underlying philosophy that is one of control and deterrence does largely persists.

Implementation and Transition Challenges

The shift from IPC to BNS is not merely academic; it affects every ongoing investigation, trial, and appeal. The government has instructed that cases registered before July 1, 2024, will continue under the IPC, while new offences will fall under the BNS. This creates a dual legal landscape that courts must navigate for years to come.

Moreover, successful implementation requires training for police officers, prosecutors, and judges, along with updates to case management systems and legal education. Without this groundwork, the new code risks becoming a rebranded version of the old law confusing practitioners and delaying justice.

A Step Toward Indianization or a Missed Opportunity?

The idea of replacing colonial-era laws carries symbolic weight. It signals independence not just in governance, but in thought and values. The BNS, BNSS, and BSA are part of this larger vision of creating a “Bharatiya” legal system rooted in Indian realities.

Yet, true Indianization must go beyond Sanskritized titles or terminological updates. It must reflect constitutional morality, federal balance, gender sensitivity, and procedural fairness. Critics argue that the new laws were passed with minimal parliamentary debate and limited consultation with legal experts or state governments. For a reform meant to modernize justice, such opacity undermines democratic legitimacy.

The Role of Judiciary in Shaping the New Era

As with the IPC, the true meaning of the BNS will unfold through judicial interpretation. Courts will play a critical role in balancing the new provisions with constitutional guarantees of free speech, equality, and due process.

Just as the Supreme Court read down colonial provisions like sedition and Section 377, it may again be called upon to test whether the BNS aligns with modern constitutional values. In that sense, the judiciary will act as the bridge between statutory reform and constitutional justice.

The Way Forward

For the BNS to succeed, India must invest not only in lawmaking but in legal culture. Training programs, public awareness campaigns, and institutional reform are essential. Moreover, citizens must understand their rights under the new framework especially since many offences have been reclassified or reworded.

Law is meaningful only when it serves people. A truly “Bharatiya” Nyaya Sanhita should reflect compassion, fairness, and accessibility, ensuring that justice is not merely punitive but restorative.

Conclusion

The replacement of the IPC with the BNS marks a historic turning point in India’s legal evolution. It is a symbolic break from the colonial past and an attempt to modernize criminal justice in line with present realities. Yet, beyond the rhetoric of decolonization, much of the structure and spirit of the old code remains intact.

While the inclusion of new offences like terrorism, organized crime, and mob lynching reflects responsiveness to modern challenges, the persistence of broad and vague provisions shows that true reform requires more than rewriting old laws. It demands a change in attitude from punishment to protection, from control to justice.

The BNS provides an opportunity to reimagine criminal law as a tool for fairness rather than fear. Its success will depend not on the language of its sections, but on the values guiding its enforcement. If implemented with integrity, it can indeed become the foundation of a more humane, accountable, and equitable justice system. If not, it risks being remembered as just another law with a new name and an old soul.

Author: Anushka Sah, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.