LETTER FROM THE EXECUTIVE BOARD

Greetings Parliamentarians,
This gives immense pleasure to the Executive Board to extend you all a warm welcome and
congratulate you for being a part of the sixth edition of our very own simulation of the United
Nations- SAIMUN and the committee “Lok Sabha”.
The agenda we have in hand tackles one of the most discussed, deliberated and argued upon
issues in the Indian Parliament recently, keeping in mind the freeze date(4th December, 2024)the
committee will carry on its discussions. Given the extremely political and volatile nature of this
committee, your presence of mind and politico-analytical aptitude is something which we at the
executive board would be looking to test.
The Executive Board seeks an out of box solution from you, while knowing and understanding
your impending political and ideological limitations. The direction that we foresee includes
substantive arguments, deliberations and outlooks and not just unnecessary banters or
platitudes.
This introductory guide would be as abstract as possible, and would just give you a basic
perspective on what you can expect from the committee and areas wherein which your research
should be focused at, we would very much appreciate if the Parliamentarians are able to find
new realms in the agenda and bring it forth in the committee.
The EB is all open to you queries, prospects of concerns and criticism. With that, we wish you
all good luck and hope to see you all at this conference discussing imperative issues of national
concern.
WARM REGARDS

Khushbu Khanna[ CHAIR]: 7061@sathyasaiindore.com

Sarah Verma[ CO CHAIR]: 5716@sathyasaiindore.com

NOTE: Under no circumstances will sources like Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/),

AmnestyInternational (http://www.amnesty.org/) or newspapers like Times of
India(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/), etc. be accepted as PROOF/ EVIDENCE. But they
can be used for better understanding of any issue

NOTE: The best way to debate in any format is to clearly state your opinion and justify it with
substantive rational sources..
ABOUT THE COMMITTEE
This is an Indian Committee which focuses on the agenda which aims at ending the Colonial
Criminal Procedure code 1908. The committee will also focus on the attributes of the Indian
Penal Code 1860 and the Indian Evidence Act 1872. This is a bilingual committee and will run
the same way as the Indian Parliamentary Sessions .
The committee is expected to debate whether the existing laws of the criminal justice
system are suitable for modern India and if it must be changed or just amended. The
committee has to pose substantive arguments on whether a bill for the change in Criminal
laws must be passed or not…..So let’s work together for the betterment of our country!
Following are some of the rules and regulations that the committee is expected to follow:
Rule 1: Official and working languages:
The parliamentarians are allowed to speak both in English and Hindi in the formal and informal
sessions of the committee.

Rule 2: Decorum:

This is the most important rule of the committee: the delegates are requested to maintain
discipline and not create any nuisance in the committee.

Rule 3: Dress code:

As this is an Indian committee the delegates must carry an Indian attire on all three days of the
conference.

Rule 4 - Seating of the Parliamentary Members

The lay-out of the Chamber of the Committee should resemble as far as possible the layout of
the Chamber of Lok Sabha. Ruling party to sit on the right side of the chair. Opposition and
other alliances to sit on the left side of the chair. Both sides more or less equal in no.

INTRODUCTION:
What is CrPC 1908 (Code of Criminal Procedure)?
The Code of Criminal Procedure(CrPC) is a legal statute in India that governs the procedural
aspects of criminal law in the country. It provides a framework for the investigation, trial and
adjudication of criminal cases. The CrPC outlines the procedures that law enforcement
agencies, the judiciary, and other parties involved in the criminal justice system must follow
when dealing with criminal matters. It covers various aspects, including the arrest and detention
of suspects, the conduct of trials, the rules of evidence and the sentencing of convicted
individuals. The CrPC is a crucial tool for ensuring the fair and just administration of criminal
justice in India.
As a sequel to the IPC, a Code of Criminal Procedure , 1861 was enacted. The 1861 code was
repealed after which a new code came and enacted in 1973. The most recent amendment in the
criminal code was made in 1908.

What is Indian Penal Code, 1860?

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) was established during British rule in 1860 on the
recommendations of the first Law Commission of India, which was established in 1834 under
the Charter Act of 1833 and was led by Thomas Babington Macaulay. However the code was
enacted on January 1, 1862, and applied to the entire British India. After independence, the
Govt. of India adopted it as the criminal code of the Republic of India.
It serves as fundamental legal framework in India for establishing criminal liability related to
specified offenses and setting exceptions to criminal liability for these offenses. It encompasses
a comprehensive set of laws , addressing all substantive aspects of criminal law. Substantive
criminal law, within the IPC specifies the definition of crimes like ‘robbery’, ‘assault' and
‘murder’ and outlines the characteristics of these crimes and the corresponding penalties. It
applies to all Indian citizens and individuals of Indian origin, regardless of location. The IPC is
organized into 23 chapters and consists of 511 sections.

What is the Indian Evidence Act 1872?

The Indian Evidence Act,1872, has eleven chapters and 167 sections which came into
force on September 1, 1872. At that time, India was a part of the British Empire. Over a period
of more than 150 years since its enactment, the Indian Evidence Act has basically retained its
original form except certain amendments from time to time.
The enactment and adoption of the Indian Evidence Act was a path-breaking judicial measure
introduced in India, which changed the entire system of concepts pertaining to admissibility of
evidence in the Indian courts of law. Until then, the rules of evidence were based on the
traditional legal systems of different social groups and communities of India and were different
for different people depending on caste, community, faith and social position. The Indian
Evidence Act introduced a standard set of law applicable to all Indians. The law is mainly based
upon the firm work by Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, who could be called the founding father of
this comprehensive piece of legislation.

This Act is divided into three parts and there are 11 chapters in total under this Act.
Part 1
Part 1 deals with relevancy of the facts. There are two chapters under this part: the first chapter
is a preliminary chapter which introduces the Evidence Act and the second chapter specifically
deals with the relevancy of the facts.
Part 2
Part 2 consists of chapters from 3 to 6. Chapter 3 deals with facts which need not be
proved, chapter 4 deals with oral evidence, chapter 5 deals with documentary evidence and
chapter 6 deals with circumstances when documentary evidence has been given preference over
the oral evidence.
Part 3
The last part, that is part 3, consists of chapter 7 to chapter 11. Chapter 7 talks about the burden
of proof. Chapter 8 talks about estoppel, chapter 9 talks about witnesses, chapter 10 talks about
examination of witnesses, and last chapter which is chapter 11 talks about improper admission
and rejection of evidence.

TERRITORIAL EXTEND,SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY

*The Code of Criminal Procedure governs the entire country of India.

*Article 370 of the Indian Constitution limits Parliament’s ability to
legislate in relation to Jammu and Kashmir.
*Though as of 2019 the Parliament has repealed the article and has
extended the scope of CrPC even to Jammu and Kashmir.
*Furthermore, the Supreme Court of India that the authorities must
follow the substance of these norms even in these places.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IPC AND CrPC?

*The Criminal Procedure Code is a procedural law, whereas the Indian Penal Code is
substantive law..

*The penalties and punishments for the various infractions are also specified in the Code.

*The Criminal Procedure Code, on the other hand, specifies the steps that the police must
follow to investigate any infraction after a crime has been committed.

*The Indian Penal Legislation is intended to serve as the country’s primary penal code for
punishing wrongdoers.
*The major purpose of the Criminal Procedure Code, on the other hand, is to provide binding
procedures that must be followed during the administration of a criminal trial.

*The Indian Penal Code lacks the powers granted to courts and magistrates by the Criminal
Procedure Code of 1973

ARREST AND RIGHTS OF THE ARRESTED PERSON

1)Under Section 57/167 of the CrPC, the accused must be produced before a Magistrate within
24 hours of arrest. If the investigation cannot be concluded within this time, a Magistrate may
order for the remand of the arrested person to police custody u/s 167 (3) of the Cr.P.C.

2)Under Section 50 of the CrPC, the arrested person is to be informed of the particulars of the
offence or any other grounds for arrest. Further,if arrested without a warrant for an offence
which is bailable, he/she must be informed that he/she is entitled to be released on bail.

3)Under Section 50A of the CrPC, the arrested person is entitled to have a person nominated by
him informed about the arrest. The Supreme Court has also recognized the right of the arrested
person to have access to a lawyer.

4)Under Section 54 CrPC, the arrested person can request that he/she be examined by a medical
practitioner if the examination of his person will either disprove the commission of the offence
by him, or will prove the commission of any offence against his body by another person.

COMPLICATIONS IN THE PRE-TRIAL OF CrPC

What is a pre-trial?
A jury trial is a hearing held before a jury by a judge, arbitrator, etc. to resolve any legal or
factual issues and to agree on such issues between the parties to expedite the justice process and
reduce costs. Because the vast majority of criminal cases are resolved amicably at this stage and
never get to court, pre-trial processes are essential parts of the legal system. They consist of the
pre-arrest investigation, conviction, custody, court ruling, initial court appearance before a
municipal judge, preliminary or grand jury hearing, the arraignment of the evidence or the
indictment, and petitions for pre-trial processes.

Complications involved in pre-trial

Pre-trial issues in CrPC can be wide-ranging and can affect the criminal justice system at
several points. Investigation delays are a significant problem that might extend the pre-trial
period and lead to the accused's continued imprisonment. Many factors, such as insufficient
funding, corruption, and political meddling, may contribute to this. External pressure or
influence may occasionally affect the investigation's objectivity. In CrPC proceedings, the
authenticity and admissibility of the evidence might also be a problem before the trial. It may be
challenging to establish the facts of the case if the evidence is tampered with, misplaced, or
destroyed. A challenge to the admission of some evidence in court may result from the fact that
some evidence may have been obtained dishonestly or under duress.
Pre-trial issues can generally provide the Indian criminal justice system with major difficulties,
especially when it comes to protecting the rights of the accused and the fairness of the judicial
system. Recognizing and tackling these problems is essential if India's criminal justice system is
to become more efficient and equitable. We shall attempt to analyze the complexities through
the use of this article, including Pre-Trial Detention, Witness-Related Issues, The Admissibility
and Efficacy of Evidence, and Tampering. The author will make recommendations regarding
the issues and challenges affecting the justice system.

Key pointers of complications

Knowledge of Accusation
The knowledge of accusation is one of the most basic pre-trial problems under CrPC. In a
language they can comprehend, the accused must be apprised of the allegations' nature and
specifics.
If the accused is not made aware of the allegations against them, it may cause
misunderstandings and doubt about the course of the case. The rights of the accused may be
violated as a result, and the fairness of the trial may be jeopardized. Also, if the allegations are
not properly presented, the accused may not be able to fully defend themselves or may be found
guilty in error. If the accused does not comprehend the terminology used to formulate the
charges, complications may result. According to the CrPC, the accused must explain the
accusations in a language they can understand. It can be required to provide the accused with an
interpreter if they are charged in a language they do not understand. This can be difficult,
especially if the accused speaks a dialect or an uncommon language.

Right to open Trial

An important component of the Indian criminal justice system is the right to an open trial. The
notion of an open trial is outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which mandates
that all criminal trials be held in public and open to the press and public. The right to an open
trial, however, can occasionally be restricted or limited, which might cause issues during the
preliminary hearing. To safeguard the identity of victims or witnesses, for example, the right to
an open trial may be restricted. The court may, in particular circumstances, direct that hearings
be conducted behind closed doors, without the presence of the public or the media. This is done
to keep the victim or witness from being identified, especially in situations where there is a
possibility of damage or intimidation.
Limiting the right to an open trial, meanwhile, may cause some people to question the justice
and openness of the legal system. According to the Supreme Court of India, a crucial
component of the right to a fair trial is the right to a public trial. There have been several
examples in recent years when the right to an open trial has been restricted, sparking debate and
legal issues. For instance, the Delhi High Court ruled that the hearings of a criminal defamation
action against the Chief Minister of Delhi be held in camera in Subramanian Swamy v.
Government of India (2016), citing the necessity to preserve the accused's privacy.

Aid of Counsel
The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) guarantees the right to counsel, which is a critical
component of the Indian criminal justice system. Nonetheless, there are some circumstances in
which problems with the assistance of counsel during the pre-trial stage can occur. The problem
of having access to legal counsel is one of the major difficulties in this situation. The CrPC
guarantees the accused's right to be represented by a lawyer of their choosing, but in actuality,
this may not always be attainable. Due to financial limitations or the lack of attorneys in some
locations, there have been occasions where the accused was unable to secure legal
representation.
In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, the court determined that the right to legal
representation is a necessary component of a fair trial and that the state is responsible for
providing legal representation to individuals who cannot afford it. The issue of adequate legal
representation may also come up during the preliminary hearing stage. Even if the accused has
access to legal representation, there may be instances where the standard of the defense is
subpar. Under certain situations, the accused could be unable to mount a compelling defense,
which could result in an injustice.
In general, the fairness and integrity of the pre-trial procedure depend on assuring the presence
of counsel. The Indian legal system has to take action to guarantee that the accused has access
to legal representation and that it is both sufficient and effective. Failing to do so may result in
issues that impair the legal process and may cause errors in the administration of justice.

Illegal Arrest
According to the Indian Constitution, the right to protection from unlawful arrest is a
fundamental right, and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) offers protection against
arbitrary or illegal detention. Nonetheless, there are some circumstances in which protection
against unlawful arrest during the preliminary hearings can become problematic.

The problem of unwarranted arrests is one of the key difficulties. There have been instances
where the police have made arrests without a warrant even though such arrests are not permitted
by law, even though the CrPC permits warrantless arrests in some circumstances, such as when
a cognizable violation is committed in the presence of a police officer. The integrity of the legal
system may be jeopardized lot of accusations of illegitimate or arbitrary arrests.
The courts must in these situations make sure that the accused's rights are upheld. The right to
personal liberty is recognized by the Indian Supreme Court as a basic right guaranteed by the
Constitution, and any restriction on that right must be legal. In Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P.,
the court ruled that the right to make an arrest must be used strictly in accordance with the law
and that any deviation would make the arrest unlawful. The problem of torture or physical
abuse in detention is another concern that could come up during the pre-trial stage. In certain
cases, the police have used force or torture while holding someone in prison, either to coerce a
confession or as a form of punishment. In addition to violating the accused's rights, this may
jeopardize the fairness of the legal system.

1. Delay in Investigation
Delays in the inquiry process can cause issues during the pre-trial stage. The Code of
Criminal Procedure (CrPC) stipulates that the investigation process must be completed
within a certain per, although there have been occasions where investigations have been
postponed, creating difficulties at the pre-trial stage. The infringement of the accused's
rights is one of the major issues brought on by investigation process delays. This may
potentially result in the accused spending time in custody without being tried, which
would violate their right to personal liberty.
Loss of evidence is another issue that may develop as a result of inquiry process delays.
Investigations that take longer than expected may result in the loss of important witnesses
or pieces of evidence, endangering the fairness of the courtroom proceedings. Due to the
lack of crucial evidence, this may result in cases where the accused is wrongfully
convicted or exonerated.
The prosecution must move swiftly and make sure that investigations are carried out
without undue delay, according to the Supreme Court of India. In State of the Punjab v.
Singhara Singh, the court determined that the prosecution must proceed promptly and
diligently to guarantee that the trial is handled fairly since a delay in the investigation
process may result in the loss of important evidence. In general, delays in the
investigation process can cause issues during the pre-trial stage and jeopardize the
fairness of the legal system.

Suggestions:
The following ideas can be taken into consideration to reduce the potential issues that
may develop during the pre-trial stage under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC):

1)Tight adherence to legal safeguards: To protect the rights of the accused, law
enforcement agencies must adhere strictly to the legal safeguards given by the CrPC. This
entails making sure that no torture or other forms of involuntary corporal punishment are
employed, that the accused is informed of the reasons for the arrest, and that arrest
warrants are secured where necessary.

2) Investigation that must be completed within a certain amount of time: The CrPC
stipulates that an investigation must be completed within a certain amount of time. The
investigating officer must make sure that the inquiry is finished promptly and that the
charge sheet is sent to the court.

3) Law enforcement personnel must be trained and made more aware of the value of
respecting the rights of the accused and the necessity of abiding by the legal protections
established by the CrPC. To make sure that authorities are knowledgeable of the legal
requirements and better prepared to address pre-trial issues, regular training and
sensitization programs might be helpful.

4) Technology use: Using electronic document filing, video conferencing, and electronic
evidence can speed up the pre-trial process and reduce delays. This can aid in ensuring
that cases are handled more quickly and that the rights of the accused are upheld.

5) Review of the legal framework: The CrPC's pre-trial procedural rules should be
routinely examined to make sure they remain relevant to society's changing demands and
the legal environment as a whole. This can assist in finding any holes or flaws in the legal
system and implementing the required corrections.
6) Fast-track courts: Creating fast-track courts can help clear the backlog of cases and
guarantee that pre-trial activities are finished in a fair amount of time.

7) Ultimately, it is crucial to take action to guarantee a fair and effective pre-trial stage of
criminal proceedings. This can aid in avoiding issues and guarantee that justice is served
promptly and effectively.

THE NEW CRIMINAL LAWS INTRODUCED IN THE

PARLIAMENT
( The ruling party has to introduce this in the simulation)

BHARTIYA NYAY SANHITA 2023

New criminal law Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita of 2023 is an endeavour to redefine and
redirect the code and has replaced the erstwhile Indian Penal Code, 1860, this law aims to
take a nuanced approach towards offenses by imposing penalties on actions that pose a
threat to the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. Additionally, it tackles challenges
like terrorism, organized crime, by differentiating between serious and minor offenses
and imposing strict punishments for serious offenses. The idea of ‘Community Service’,
as a penalty for crimes is now being implemented under the law focusing on a more
rehabilitative approach to justice. The recent legislation has added “snatching” as an
offense, under Section 304 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
 BHARTIYA NAGRIK SURAKSHA SANHITA 2023
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 aims to refine our Criminal procedure
system. By setting timelines for investigations it intends to ensure that justice is more
accessible and responsive to the needs of the people. In this new criminal law one notable
change can be seen in Section 176 of the Act, which mandates investigation for crimes
carrying a punishment of seven (7) years imprisonment or more. This means that
appointed experts will be involved in conducting on site investigations. Additionally,
Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita embraces the new digital age by
allowing digital methods for trials, inquiries and proceedings. This shift toward
documentation and proceedings aligns with advancements in technology and helps
streamline legal processes. One revolutionary concept is the implementation of Zero
FIRs. According to Section 173 of the Act, individuals have the right to file a First
Information Report (FIR) at any police station, for a cognizable offense regardless of its
jurisdiction. It states that the FIR must be transferred to the police station, for handling
crimes committed in that particular area within a span of 15 days. Crime and Criminal
tracking system will be used for the benefit of the public.

BHARTIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam has replaced the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 resulting in
alterations to the structure of Evidence Law. In today’s environment, where technology holds
great importance, this new criminal law acknowledges electronic evidence, as any information
produced or transmitted by a device or system that can store or recover data. Section 57 of the
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam emphasizes the recognition of electronic records as primary
evidence. Moreover, the Act includes provisions that enable the electronic presentation of even
oral evidence. This advancement makes it possible for witnesses to testify remotely ensuring
that digital records hold the same significance as traditional paper documents. Section 24 of the
Act, expands on the idea of joint trials.
COMPARISON BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW CRIMINAL
LAWS

BASIS OLD CRIMINAL LAWS NEW CRIMINAL LAWS

The laws are Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagrik
The laws were Indian Penal Code, Suraksha and Bharatiya Sakshya
Code of Criminal Procedure, Adhiniyam. The philosophy is to
Indian Evidence Act. The provide restorative justice focused
Laws and philosophy was to provide punitive on rehabilitation and victim
Philosophy and retributive justice. centric.

Built for the Modern India, with

Developed by Britishers under focus on ever dynamic legal
Ideology British oversight and ideology landscape.

There are provisions for fixed

punishments as well as restorative
There were fixed punishments and justice provisions like imposition of
penalties specified for various community service or
Sentencing kinds of crimes. rehabilitation.

The acts provided strict and rigid

rules for testimonies of witness and Scope of admissibility was
sometimes relied upon unreliable expanded to take into account
Admissibility of circumstantial evidence. Electronic digital evidence and records and to
Evidence evidence had limited admissibility. strengthen investigations.

Tiring, cumbersome and lengthy Aimed at expediting the trial

procedures due to which due to process by implementing time limit
which people face delays and and leverage technology to
Trial Procedures backlogs in courts. enhance efficiency.

AN OVERALL ANALYSIS OF THE NEW LAWS

India’s criminal laws have sparked a closer look into the difficulties, consequences and
objections associated with these changes. A particular area of concern that has garnered
increased scrutiny is the increase in the duration of police custody under the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita. Raising the limit from 15 days to either 60 or 90 days depending on the
severity of the offense brings up questions about striking a balance, between law enforcement
requirements and protecting civil liberties.

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita introduces a series of broadly defined offences, particularly those
pertaining to the security of the state. While the omission of the term “sedition” is notable, its
replacement, “Acts endangering sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India,” retains ambiguous
wording, contributing to concerns about potential over criminalization. The expansive scope of
offences like “organised crime” and “terrorist act” remains, and while attempts have been made
to clarify and limit their definitions, questions linger about potential misuse and impact on
individuals. Issues like high vacancies, judicial overload, and the need for comprehensive
infrastructure development and personnel training for forensic experts and audio-video
recording of statements must be diligently tackled to realize the intended efficiencies.

Section 57 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam emphasizes the recognition of electronic

records as primary evidence. Moreover, the Act includes provisions that enable the electronic
presentation of even oral evidence which is in line with the digital transformation the country is
going through.

The new criminal laws also aims to streamline processes through mandatory audio-video
recording of search and seizure, the comprehensive impact depends on addressing deep-rooted
structural barriers. Achieving the intended reforms demands a holistic approach, encompassing
systemic changes, infrastructure development.

DIVIDING FORCES BEHIND THE REFORMS

These new laws were created as a result of socio- political factors. Demand for justice that
prioritizes victims, the need for tech regulations due to the digital revolution and evolving
societal values all played a key role. Additionally, there were pressures such as judicial activism
highlighting inefficiencies and international obligations as well as diverse opinions from judges.
While they acknowledged the potential for improvement they also emphasized the importance
of understanding and implementation. It has also been pointed out that justice has been
delivered slow in India due to a number of pending cases in various courts. Therefore, there is a
need to transition towards a modern legal system.

CONCLUSION
The analysis of the Bills reveals gaps and shortcomings that warrant attention. The exclusion of
the erstwhile section 377 of the IPC by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) poses a gap, leaving
no specific provision addressing the rape of an adult man. The proposed laws bring in offenses
that are worded in a manner particularly concerning the states security. This could potentially
result in over-criminalization and unclear legal provisions. Despite these concerns, the
legislative initiatives encapsulated in the three Acts underscore India’s commitment to reform
its legal and investigative systems. A notable focus on technology and forensic science
positions the legal framework in the modern era. The Acts demonstrate a commitment to
providing enhanced protection for marginalized and vulnerable segments of society, aligning the
criminal justice system with current needs and values.

WHAT ARE THE CONTROVERSIES OR DRAWBACKS IN THE

NEW LAWS

“ New criminal law bills endanger the civil liberties”. It has been stated by many opposition
members that The new Criminal Procedure Code contains many provisions that are
unconstitutional and violate Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and It is the poor and
oppressed sections of the people who will bear the brunt of the new Penal Code and the new
Criminal Procedure Code. It has been stated that instead of strengthening "due process of law",
the new Criminal Procedure Code contains many provisions that severely restrict "freedom" and
"personal liberty". Controversies surround aspects such as the extension of police custody
duration, potential misuse of expanded powers, and concerns about over criminalization. The
new provisions for arrest and police custody (that can extend custody up to 60 days or 90 days)
will only lead to police excesses and custodial persecution.

The new laws seem to be heading towards a system that unreasonably expands state control by
extensive overcriminalisation and wider police powers. One particular aspect of the BNSS will
have a significant impact on civil liberties but it has barely received any attention. The massive
expansion of the possible duration of police custody in the BNSS strikes at the very heart of
civil liberties protection. The BNSS expands the maximum limit of police custody under
general criminal law from 15 days to either 60 days or 90 days (depending on the nature of the
offence). Under our current law, police custody is limited to the first 15 days of arrest. The
expansion under the proposed BNSS heightens the risk of exposure to police excesses. Given
widely acknowledged concerns about the safety of arrested persons in police custody, and the
heightened risk of coerced and fabricated evidence after prolonged detention, this provision of
the BNSS is a shocking expansion of police powers. Remarkably, our general criminal law will
now incorporate provisions that were until now limited to “special laws”. In fact, these
provisions go beyond what the “special laws' ' provide on the duration of police custody.

"The three criminal justice bills bulldozed through Parliament last

week, aided by the deliberate suspension of 146 INDIA MPs, have
now received Presidential assent."
WHAT IS THE NEED FOR TRANSFORMATION IN CrPC
(Is this actually needed?)

Crime, which is usually defined as actions, mistakes, or illegal activities that can be
punished by the law, and criminal laws go hand in hand in every community. The phrase
“criminal law” covers a wide range of laws. The main goal of enforcing any criminal law
is to make sure the guilty party bears the weight of their wrongdoings and that the
aggrieved party gets justice through well-established legal processes.
The primary motive for this massive overhaul was rooted in the realization that the
existent criminal laws were chiefly remnants of colonialism and required major
amendments. In the past, as a nation, we were the only ones who took on these rules
spawning from the British Parliament. They own up to 475 historical mentions in the UK
Parliament, London Gazette, Privy Council, and the British Crown. This justification
shows that this much-awaited change was necessary.

ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMITTEE

EXPECTS FROM THE PARLIAMENTARIANS

1. Is CrPC actually a fail, if yes then what are the incidences that showcase it’s failure?

2. Why is it necessary to change the existing Criminal laws?

3. Will the change bring a real progress in the country or is it just a political play?

4. Why is CrPC not suitable for India today?

5. Effects the change can bring to the Criminal Justice System. Will it be Positive or
Negative?

6.What changes , if needed must be brought in the CrPC?

7. Is only a name change enough?

INDIA, LET’S TAKE A STEP AHEAD FOR SECURING
THE FUTURE OF OUR WOMEN, CHILDREN AND
COMMON MAN AND DECIDE WITH OPEN MINDS IF
THIS CHANGE IS A REALLY NEEDED……?

Note-
*Nothing in this study guide can be used as an established fact in the
committee without a credible source mentioned by the delegate. This guide is
only for your basic knowledge and understanding of the agenda.

*Kindly do not limit your research to this guide only, broaden your horizons
or research and knowledge. The topics mentioned above gives you a gist of
the flow of committee and what the Executive Board expects the committee to
be implemented like

For any queries you can contact the EB on the e mail ids mentioned above.