The department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs has put forth several recommendations for three bills aimed at reforming criminal laws in the country. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam bills underwent scrutiny, with dissenting notes from some opposition members. Here are some notable recommendations:
- Retaining Gender-Neutral Section 377:
- The committee suggests partially retaining Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in a gender-neutral form. While the Supreme Court decriminalized consensual sexual acts between legal adults, the committee proposes retaining Section 377 for non-consensual acts, acts with minors, and bestiality.
- Retaining Adultery Offense in Gender-Neutral Form:
- Despite the Supreme Court striking down Section 497 (adultery) in 2018, the committee advocates for retaining the offense in a gender-neutral form. This implies making both men and women equally liable, aiming to safeguard the sanctity of the institution of marriage.
- Replacing ‘Mental Illness’ with ‘Unsound Mind’:
- Concerned about the broad interpretation of ‘mental illness,’ the committee recommends replacing it with ‘unsound mind’ to avoid potential misinterpretations. This change aims to prevent individuals from using conditions like mood swings or voluntary intoxication as defenses during trials.
- Restricting Handcuff Use for Economic Offenses:
- The committee proposes restrictions on the blanket application of handcuffs for ‘economic offenses’ under Section 43(3). While acknowledging the appropriateness of handcuffs for heinous crimes, the committee cautions against a broad interpretation that could encompass petty offenses within the ‘economic offenses’ category.
Additionally, opposition members, including Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, Ravneet Singh, P. Chidambaram, Derek O’Brien, Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar, Dayanidhi Maran, Digvijaya Singh, and N. R. Elango, have submitted dissent notes opposing various provisions of the bills. Some opposition leaders raised concerns about the use of Hindi names for the bills, alleging unconstitutionality and an affront to non-Hindi speakers. There were also claims of insufficient consultation before finalizing the reports, with allegations of gaps in the drafting methodology.