New Criminal Laws (BNS, BNSS, BSA)
Indian Polity & Governance
- PYQs8
- Articles1
Background
Represents a significant legislative reform impacting fundamental rights, governance, and the administration of justice; tests understanding of legal frameworks and their implementation challenges.
The new criminal laws, namely the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), replaced the Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, and Indian Evidence Act respectively, coming into force on July 1, 2024, to overhaul India's criminal justice system.
Facts & tables
- Replaced Acts
- Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, Indian Evidence Act
- Effective Date
- July 1, 2024
- Key Focus
- Integration of technology in criminal justice processes
- Implementation Requirement
- Extensive capacity building for stakeholders
| Type | Reference |
|---|---|
| Conceptual area | Indian Polity & Governance |
| Body | Role |
|---|---|
| Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPR&D) | Capacity building |
| State/UT Governments | Implements |
Prelims angle
Prelims angle: Statement-based questions
Prelims angle: Factual recall
- Replaced IPC, CrPC, Indian Evidence Act.
- Effective July 1, 2024.
- Emphasizes technology (e-FIR, e-Summons, video conferencing).
- Requires extensive training for police, judiciary, prosecutors.
- Aims for a more citizen-centric justice system.
| Year | Framing tags |
|---|---|
| 2022 | Statement-based questions, Factual recall |
| 2021 | Statement-based questions, Conceptual understanding |
| 2021 | Conceptual understanding, Multi-statement analysis |
| 2020 | Multi-statement analysis, Factual recall |
| 2019 | Statement-based questions, Conceptual understanding |
| 2019 | Conceptual understanding, Institutional roles and functions |
| 2019 | Multi-statement analysis, Factual recall |
| 2018 | Statement-based questions, Conceptual understanding |
Timeline
-
Indian Polity & Governance
Conceptual area
-
Prelims 2018
Statement-based questions, Conceptual understanding
-
Prelims 2019
Statement-based questions, Conceptual understanding
-
Prelims 2019
Conceptual understanding, Institutional roles and functions
-
Prelims 2019
Multi-statement analysis, Factual recall
-
Prelims 2020
Multi-statement analysis, Factual recall
-
Prelims 2021
Statement-based questions, Conceptual understanding
-
Prelims 2021
Conceptual understanding, Multi-statement analysis
-
Prelims 2022
Statement-based questions, Factual recall
-
IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW CRIMINAL LAWS
Major overhaul of criminal laws, replacing colonial-era statutes with a focus on citizen-centric justice and technology.
See also
Past papers
2018–2022 · 8 questions
In the news
IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW CRIMINAL LAWS
Major overhaul of criminal laws, replacing colonial-era statutes with a focus on citizen-centric justice and technology.
Try these PYQs
Consider the following statements :
1. Pursuant to the report of H.N. Sanyal Committee, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was passed.
2. The Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court and the High Courts to punish for contempt of themselves.
3. The Constitution of India defines Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt.
4. In India, the Parliament is vested with the powers to make laws on Contempt of Court.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Statement 1 is correct: The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was enacted based on the recommendations of the H.N. Sanyal Committee, which examined the law relating to contempt of courts. Statement 2 is correct: Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution empower the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively, to punish for contempt of themselves. Statement 3 is incorrect: The Constitution does not define civil contempt and criminal contempt; these are defined under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Statement 4 is correct: Parliament has the power to make laws on contempt of court, as evidenced by the enactment of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
With reference to the Constitution of India, prohibitions or limitations or provisions contained in ordinary laws cannot act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional powers under Article 142. It could mean which one of the following?
Article 142 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders and decrees necessary to ensure "complete justice" in any case before it. This power is vast and extraordinary. Article 142 allows the Supreme Court to ensure that ordinary laws comply with the Constitution and that complete justice is delivered. Even if an ordinary law creates limitations, the Supreme Court can override it using Article 142 to achieve a just outcome.
Consider the following statements :
1. The motion to impeach a Judge of the Supreme Court of India cannot be rejected by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
2. The Constitution of India defines and gives details of what constitutes ‘incapacity and proved misbehaviour’ of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India.
3. The details of the process of impeachment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India are given in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
4. If the motion for the impeachment of a Judge is taken up for voting, the law requires the motion to be backed by each House of the Parliament and supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by not less than two-thirds of total members of that House present and voting.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Statement 1 is incorrect: The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, explicitly gives the Speaker of the Lok Sabha (or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha) the discretion to either admit or refuse to admit a motion for the removal of a judge. If the motion is not in order or is deemed frivolous, the Speaker can reject it at the initial stage itself. This power was notably exercised by the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha in 2018 when he rejected an impeachment motion against the then Chief Justice of India. Statement 2 is incorrect: The terms "incapacity" and "proven misbehaviour", which are grounds for the removal of a judge under Article 124(4) of the Constitution, are not explicitly defined in the Constitution. Their interpretation has evolved through judicial pronouncements and parliamentary discussions. Statement 3 is correct: The constitutional provisions related to the removal of judges are found in Articles 124(4), 124(5), 217, and 218. Additionally, the process is governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which outlines the procedural framework for investigating misconduct and incapacity. Statement 4 is correct: As per Article 124(4) of the Constitution, for a motion seeking the removal of a Supreme Court or High Court judge to proceed, it must be passed by:
- A majority of the total membership of the House, and
- A majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting.
With reference to the Constitution of India, consider the following statements:
1. No High Court shall have the jurisdiction to declare any central law to be constitutionally invalid.
2. An amendment to the Constitution of India cannot be called into question by the Supreme Court of India.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Statement 1 is incorrect. High Courts have the power to declare central laws unconstitutional. This power is derived from their inherent jurisdiction to uphold the Constitution. Statement 2 is incorrect. While the Supreme Court cannot question the amending power of the Parliament, it can review the constitutional validity of an amendment. The landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala established the doctrine of the 'basic structure' of the Constitution. Any amendment that violates this basic structure can be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
With reference to Indian Judiciary, consider the following statements:
1. Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with prior permission of the President of India.
2. A High Court in India has the power to review its own judgement as the Supreme Court does.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Statement 1 is correct: Under Article 128, the Chief Justice of India may, at any time, with the previous consent of the President, request a retired Judge of the Supreme Court or a retired Judge of a High Court (who is duly qualified) to sit and act as a Judge of the Supreme Court. Statement 2 is not correct: Although there is no explicit Article in the Constitution equivalent to Article 137 (which grants review power to the SC) for High Courts, the High Courts are "Courts of Record" under Article 215. As a Court of Record, a High Court has the inherent power to review its own orders and judgments to correct any patent error or prevent a miscarriage of justice. This has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in various rulings.
Show 3 more PYQs
Consider the following statements :
1. The Parliament of India can place a particular law in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India.
2. The validity of a law placed in the Ninth Schedule cannot be examined by any court and no judgement can be made on it.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Statement 1 is correct: The Ninth Schedule was introduced through the First Constitutional Amendment (1951) to protect certain laws from judicial review, even if they violated Fundamental Rights (Part III of the Constitution). Statement 2 is incorrect: The protection under the Ninth Schedule is not absolute. As per the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) and reaffirmed in the I.R. Coelho case (2007), laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, can still be challenged if they violate the "Basic Structure" of the Constitution. Thus, while the Ninth Schedule provides a degree of protection, the Supreme Court retains the power to review laws that undermine the Constitution’s core principles. Hence, the correct answer is option (a) 1 only.
We adopted parliamentary democracy based on the British model, but how does our model differ from that model?
1. As regards legislation, the British Parliament is supreme or sovereign but in India, the power of the Parliament to legislate is limited.
2. In India, matters related to the constitutionality of the Amendment of an Act of the Parliament are referred to the Constitution Bench by the Supreme Court
Select the correct answer using the codes given below.
Statement 1 is Correct: The key difference lies in Parliamentary Supremacy. In the British model, Parliament is considered sovereign. This means its legislative powers are supreme, and its laws cannot be challenged by any other body. In India, the Constitution is supreme. Parliament's power to legislate is limited by the Constitution. The judiciary can review laws passed by Parliament and strike them down if they violate the Constitution. Statement 2 is also Correct: This is a specific example of the limitation on Parliament's power in India. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has the authority to review amendments made to existing laws (Acts) and determine if they are constitutional. This power of judicial review ensures the Constitution remains the supreme law.
Consider the following statements:
1. Aadhaar metadata cannot be stored for more than three months.
2. State cannot enter into any contract with private corporations for sharing of Aadhaar data.
3. Aadhaar is mandatory for obtaining insurance products.
4. Aadhaar is mandatory for getting benefits funded out of the Consolidated Fund of India.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Statement 1 is incorrect: The Supreme Court ruled that Aadhaar metadata cannot be stored for more than six months, which invalidated the provision in the Aadhaar Act that allowed the storage of such data for up to five years. Statement 2 is correct: The Supreme Court struck down Section 57 which allowed private corporations to verify Aadhaar data. The Court held this provision unconstitutional, as it was seen to violate privacy rights. Statement 3 is incorrect: The 2018 Supreme Court judgment declared that making Aadhaar mandatory for services beyond welfare schemes, including financial services like insurance or for preventing money laundering, was unconstitutional. In response to this ruling, the IRDAI issued an advisory in 2019, clarifying that Aadhaar is not mandatory for obtaining insurance. It also withdrew its earlier 2017 policy that had made Aadhaar compulsory for insurance in the context of anti-money laundering measures. Statement 4 is correct: In the Aadhaar verdict, the Supreme Court upheld Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act, which allows the Central or State Governments to make Aadhaar authentication mandatory for receiving subsidies, benefits, or services funded by the Consolidated Fund of India. The Court defined welfare schemes as those funded by the Consolidated Fund of India, thus validating the use of Aadhaar for such schemes. Therefore, the correct answer is B. 2 and 4 only.