New Criminal Laws Two Years On: How BNS, BNSS and BSA Have Changed India's Courtrooms

NEW DELHI — Two years and four months after the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam replaced the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Evidence Act, the new criminal laws have produced the outcome their drafters least anticipated: a courtroom in which two legal systems run side by side. Offences committed before 1 July 2024 are still tried under the old codes; offences committed after it under the new. The same judge, the same prosecutor and the same police station work both, and will for years.

"The statute changed overnight. The courtroom is taking longer," a sessions judge in a north Indian district told The Counsel.

What changed on 1 July 2024

New law	Replaced	Principal changes
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)	Indian Penal Code, 1860	358 sections; new offences of terrorism (Section 113), organised crime (Section 111), mob lynching (Section 103(2)) and snatching (Section 304); sedition replaced by Section 152 on acts endangering sovereignty; community service as a punishment
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973	531 sections; electronic FIR and zero FIR (Section 173); mandatory videography of searches (Section 105); forensic visits to crime scenes (Section 176(3)); police custody in parts (Section 187); timelines for documents, charge, discharge and judgment; trial in absentia of proclaimed offenders (Section 356); release of first-time undertrials after one-third of the maximum sentence (Section 479)
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA)	Indian Evidence Act, 1872	170 sections; electronic records treated as documents and, in prescribed cases, as primary evidence (Sections 57 to 63); certificate requirements for electronic evidence restated in Section 63(4)

Where the laws are working

1. Searches on camera. Section 105 of the BNSS requires every search and seizure to be recorded by audio-video means and forwarded to the magistrate. In districts where the police use the dedicated application rolled out for the purpose, defence challenges to the fact of seizure — the staple of narcotics and arms trials for decades — have fallen sharply, according to data collated by state prosecution directorates. Where the recording was not made, courts have begun to treat the omission as going to the reliability of the seizure.
2. The 60-day clock on charges. The requirement to frame charges within 60 days of the first hearing, and to decide discharge applications within 60 days of supply of documents, has compressed the pre-trial stage in courts that enforce it. Several High Courts have refused to treat the limits as directory where no reasons for delay are recorded.
3. Undertrial release. Section 479, which entitles a first-time offender to release after one-third of the maximum sentence, was applied by the Supreme Court in 2024 to undertrials in cases registered before the new law. Prison data show thousands of releases under the provision, though far fewer than the number of eligible prisoners.
4. Electronic FIRs. Registration of complaints online, with the complainant's signature within three days, has removed the first obstacle many complainants faced: the refusal of a police station to write.

Where they are not

1. Judgments in 30 days. Section 258 requires judgment within 30 days of the close of arguments, extendable to 45 days for reasons recorded. In sessions courts with hundreds of pending trials, the limit is missed more often than met, and the extension has become a formality. The provision prescribes no consequence for non-compliance, and none has been devised.
2. Forensics. Section 176(3) requires a forensic expert at the scene of every offence punishable with seven years or more, with states given five years to build the capacity. Most states have notified the provision for their district headquarters only; outside them the requirement is on paper.
3. Training. State data submitted to the Union Home Ministry show that while most police officers have completed the online modules on the new laws, a minority have received classroom training on the procedures that matter most — videography, electronic evidence certificates and the new custody rules. Chargesheets that cite the wrong section, or that attach electronic evidence without the Section 63(4) certificate, remain common.
4. Two systems. Every judge now applies two codes of procedure depending on the date of the offence. Transitional questions — which code governs a supplementary chargesheet, whether a bail provision of the new code applies to an old case, which limitation runs — have generated a body of High Court decisions that is itself a source of delay.

The statute changed overnight. The courtroom is taking longer.

A sessions judge, to The Counsel

The litigation over the laws

Challenges to specific provisions continue. Section 152 of the BNS, which replaced sedition with an offence of endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, is under challenge for vagueness; the Supreme Court has meanwhile required a preliminary enquiry before a first information report is registered for speech-related offences, applying Section 173(3) of the BNSS. The provision on hit-and-run deaths in Section 106(2) of the BNS, which drew protests from transport workers in January 2024, has not been brought into force. And the power to seek police custody in parts under Section 187 has produced conflicting High Court rulings on whether the fifteen days may be spread across the first forty or sixty days of custody in all cases, or only where the accused was unavailable.

What the data say

• Pendency in district courts continues to rise, and the new laws have not yet produced a measurable reduction in trial duration for offences registered after July 2024, most of which are still at the evidence stage.
• Conviction rates in cases under the new laws are not yet meaningful, because few have reached judgment.
• The clearest measurable effects are procedural: higher rates of electronic FIR registration, more seizures with video records, and more undertrials released under Section 479.

What comes next

The Home Ministry's review of the laws, promised for the end of the second year, is expected to address the training gap and the forensic deadline. Practitioners are asking for three things: a consequence for breach of the judgment timeline, a uniform rule on custody in parts, and a transitional circular to settle which code applies to the hybrid cases that will fill the courts for the rest of the decade.

The Counsel will report the Home Ministry's two-year review when it is published. Anyone facing proceedings that straddle the two regimes should consult a qualified criminal lawyer about which code governs each stage of the case.

This report is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult a qualified lawyer about their own circumstances. Case citations are to The Counsel Reports (TCR) unless otherwise stated.