TL;DR: Three new codes replaced India’s colonial-era criminal statutes on 1 July 2024. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) replaces the IPC with 358 sections; the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) replaces the CrPC with 531 sections; the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) replaces the Evidence Act with 170 sections. The offence date governs which law applies: pre-1 July matters continue under the old codes. Key changes include community service as a punishment, new offences for organised crime, terrorism, mob lynching, and snatching, a reformed sedition-equivalent provision, mandatory forensic visits, zero FIRs, e-FIRs, and electronic records as primary evidence.

On this page

The three new codes and what each governs

On 1 July 2024, India’s criminal justice framework moved to three new statutes passed by Parliament in December 2023. Each one replaced a pillar of the old system that had been in place, in some form, since the colonial era.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) replaces the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The BNS is the substantive criminal code: it defines what conduct is an offence and prescribes the punishment for it. The BNS contains 358 sections, a significant consolidation from the 511 sections of the IPC. Several provisions have been merged, some have been dropped, and a number of new offences have been added.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) replaces the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The BNSS is the procedural code: it governs how an offence is reported to the police, how it is investigated, how an accused is arrested or bailed, how cases are prosecuted, how trials are conducted, and how sentences are carried out. The BNSS contains 531 sections organised across 39 chapters, expanded from the 484 sections across 37 chapters of the CrPC.

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) replaces the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). The BSA governs what evidence is admissible in court, how facts are proved, and what documents and statements a court will rely on. The BSA has 170 sections, a modest increase from the IEA’s 167.

A practical way to keep the three in mind: the BNS says what is a crime, the BNSS says how the system responds to it, and the BSA says what you can use to prove it. For a detailed official-style overview, PRS India’s bill analysis and Drishti IAS both provide section-by-section breakdowns.

Note on nomenclature. The three statutes are sometimes collectively called “the three new criminal laws,” “the new criminal codes,” or abbreviated BNS-BNSS-BSA. The government’s stated aim was to replace laws associated with colonial administration with codes that reflect Indian constitutional values and modern technology.

The transition rule: which law applies to your matter?

The single most practically important question for any lawyer working with a criminal matter right now is: do you apply the old regime or the new one?

The governing principle is the date of the offence, not the date of the FIR, arrest, charge-sheet, or trial. An offence committed on or before 30 June 2024 is investigated, prosecuted, and tried under the IPC, CrPC, and Evidence Act. An offence committed on or after 1 July 2024 falls under the BNS, BNSS, and BSA. This is confirmed by Drishti Judiciary’s note on the applicability of the IPC to pre-1 July offences.

The practical consequence is a dual-track system that will run in parallel for years, perhaps decades for complex cases. A sessions court on any given day may be hearing one trial under the CrPC and another under the BNSS. A lawyer appearing in both must track which regime governs each matter and avoid citing the wrong provision.

A few specific implications:

  • FIR lodged before 1 July 2024: IPC applies to the offence; CrPC governs procedure; Evidence Act applies at trial. This does not change even after the new codes came into force.
  • FIR lodged on or after 1 July 2024: BNS defines the offence; BNSS governs procedure; BSA applies at trial.
  • Continuing offences that straddle the date: consult the specific provision and seek judicial guidance; the general rule remains offence date.
  • Appeals and revisions: the procedure on appeal is governed by whichever code governed the original trial.

At a glance: old codes vs new codes

Old statuteYear enactedReplaced bySections (old)Sections (new)In force
Indian Penal Code1860Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)5113581 July 2024
Code of Criminal Procedure1973Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)4845311 July 2024
Indian Evidence Act1872Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)1671701 July 2024
Offence dateSubstantive lawProcedural lawEvidence law
On or before 30 June 2024IPC 1860CrPC 1973Evidence Act 1872
On or after 1 July 2024BNS 2023BNSS 2023BSA 2023

BNS: what changed in the substantive law

The BNS is not a line-by-line rewrite. A large portion of its content carries over from the IPC with renumbering, reorganisation, and language modernisation. The IPC’s 511 sections have been compressed to 358, primarily by consolidating related provisions and removing some offences whose coverage was duplicated elsewhere.

That said, there are genuine substantive changes worth knowing.

Community service as a sixth form of punishment

The IPC recognised five forms of punishment: death, imprisonment for life, rigorous imprisonment, simple imprisonment, and fine. The BNS adds a sixth: community service, under Section 4(f).

Community service under the BNS is not available as a discretionary option across the board. It is limited to six specific offences. For most of those, community service is an alternative to imprisonment. For one, Section 303(2) BNS (theft of property worth less than Rs 5,000, first-time offender who returns the property), community service is the sole mandatory punishment: the court has no discretion to impose imprisonment. The explanation appended to Section 23 BNSS confirms that community service means unpaid work that benefits the community and carries no remuneration.

The offences for which community service is available include defamation (Section 356 BNS), misconduct by a drunken person (Section 355 BNS), attempt to commit suicide to compel exercise of lawful power (Section 226 BNS), a public servant unlawfully engaging in trade (Section 202 BNS), and non-appearance in response to a court proclamation (Section 209 BNS), in addition to the theft provision under Section 303(2).

This is a meaningful conceptual shift: India’s criminal law now has a non-custodial, restorative option baked into the statute. Whether courts build a body of sentencing practice around it remains to be seen.

New offences introduced by the BNS

Several categories of conduct that the IPC either did not cover or addressed only indirectly now have dedicated provisions.

Organised crime: Section 111 BNS

Section 111 of the BNS introduces organised crime into the general penal code for the first time. The provision defines an organised crime syndicate and covers activities including kidnapping, extortion, cybercrime, trafficking, and contract killing committed by such groups for material benefit. Prior to the BNS, organised crime was addressed primarily through special legislation at the state level (the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act being the most prominent) and, to a limited extent, through general conspiracy and abetment provisions. The BNS brings a national-level organised crime provision into the mainstream penal code.

Terrorism: Section 113 BNS

Section 113 of the BNS defines terrorism and prescribes punishment for terrorist acts. The definition closely mirrors Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). An officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police decides whether to register a case under Section 113 BNS or under the UAPA: the two cannot both be invoked for the same act.

Legal commentators have noted that the BNS definition is arguably broader than the UAPA’s in one respect: the UAPA requires intent to “strike terror in people,” while the BNS extends this to acts intended to “intimidate the general public or disturb public order.” This textual difference may become significant in courts that must choose which provision to apply. For now, the UAPA, being a special law, is generally expected to take precedence over the general BNS provision under the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant.

Mob lynching: Sections 103(2) and 117(4) BNS

The BNS addresses mob violence through two provisions. Section 103(2) BNS covers murder by a group of five or more people on grounds of race, caste, sex, language, or personal belief (what is commonly called mob lynching in the context of fatalities). Section 117(4) BNS addresses grievous hurt committed by a group of five or more on the same grounds. Neither the IPC nor any central statute had previously named these as a distinct category of offence, and prosecutions had proceeded under general murder and assault provisions.

Snatching: Section 112 BNS

Section 112 BNS carves out snatching as a distinct offence. Under the IPC, snatching was prosecuted as theft or robbery depending on the facts. The BNS defines snatching separately, recognising a factual pattern, typically a sudden grab of an object from a person’s possession, without the sustained force that characterises robbery, that courts had long dealt with under a provision that did not quite fit.

Sexual intercourse by deceitful means: Section 69 BNS

Section 69 BNS creates a standalone offence for sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means, where the conduct does not amount to rape. The section explicitly covers a false promise of marriage without intent to fulfill it, inducement through a false promise of employment or promotion, and sexual intercourse where a person suppresses their identity to obtain consent.

The provision is notable because it codifies a category of case that courts had previously handled under rape provisions through an evolving body of case law on “consent obtained by fraud.” Section 69 BNS carries a maximum sentence of ten years imprisonment and a fine. It does not absorb rape; Section 64 BNS continues to cover rape with its own punishment.

The sedition question: section 152 BNS vs section 124A IPC

This is the change that has generated the most public and professional commentary, so it deserves careful treatment.

The IPC’s Section 124A defined sedition as exciting or attempting to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India. It was a broad, contentiously used provision that the Supreme Court had stayed in May 2022 in S.G. Vombatkere v Union of India, directing the government to reconsider it.

The BNS does not retain Section 124A. It instead creates Section 152 BNS, titled “act endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.” Section 152 BNS criminalises acts (including through words, signs, electronic communication, or financial support) that purposely or knowingly excite or attempt to excite secession, armed rebellion, or subversive activities, or encourage feelings of separatist activities, or endanger the sovereignty, unity, or integrity of India, or incite such feelings.

The differences from Section 124A are real, but opinions differ on whether they represent a liberalisation or an expansion:

Narrower than 124A in one respect: The word “disaffection” (which old courts had construed broadly to include criticism of government policies) has been removed. Section 152 BNS requires a link to secession, armed rebellion, or subversive activities, not mere criticism of the government. There is also an explicit mens rea requirement: the act must be done “purposely or knowingly.”

Broader than 124A in one respect: Section 152 extends explicitly to electronic communication and financial support, and several commentators argue the phrase “subversive activities” is undefined and may be interpreted expansively. The LiveLaw analysis notes that the coverage of “feelings of separatist activities” without further definition gives the provision a reach that may exceed 124A’s in practice.

Penalty: The maximum sentence is life imprisonment or up to seven years (with fine). Under the old 124A, the lower bracket maximum was three years; the BNS raises this lower bracket to seven years.

Whether Section 152 BNS will be used differently from 124A IPC is a question for the courts and the prosecuting authorities. The legal profession, civil liberties bodies, and press freedom groups have all flagged it as an area to watch.

Verified IPC to BNS section mappings

Section numbers have shifted significantly. The table below contains only mappings that have been verified against published sources. Do not assume any mapping not listed here without checking.

OffenceIPC sectionBNS section
Murder302103
Punishment for rape37664
Cheating420318
Theft379303
Defamation499356
Criminal conspiracy120B61
Acts endangering sovereignty (sedition-equivalent)124A152
Organised crime(no IPC equivalent)111
Terrorism(no IPC equivalent in general code)113
Mob lynching: murder(no dedicated IPC provision)103(2)
Snatching(no dedicated IPC provision)112
Sexual intercourse by deceit(no dedicated IPC provision)69

Sources: Vakeel360 IPC-to-BNS mapping, Greater Kashmir section report, ApniLaw Section 64 BNS, Drishti Judiciary cheating mapping.

When researching a matter under the new codes, always verify the specific section through the statute itself at indiacode.nic.in or a primary-source database. Mapping tables drawn from secondary sources can carry errors, especially for provisions that were consolidated or split.

For a comprehensive section-by-section comparison, see our piece on how to read and brief an Indian judgment: the same analytical framework applies to working through the new codes.

BNSS: what changed in criminal procedure

The BNSS expanded the CrPC by 47 sections (484 to 531), and while much of the structure and many of the substantive rules carry over, there are headline changes in how offences are reported and how investigations and trials are conducted.

Zero FIR: Section 173 BNSS

Under the CrPC, there were legal and practical questions about whether a police station was obliged to register an FIR for an offence that occurred outside its jurisdiction. The BNSS resolves this with Section 173(1): every police officer must register an FIR upon receiving information about a cognizable offence, regardless of where the offence occurred. The FIR registered at the non-territorial police station is the “zero FIR”: it is transferred to the jurisdictionally competent police station without delay.

This has practical significance for offences committed in transit, for victims who are not near the crime location, and for offences involving digital communications where the situs of the offence may be unclear.

e-FIR: electronic registration

Section 173 BNSS also mandates that information about a cognizable offence may be given by electronic communication. An e-FIR so registered must be signed physically by the informant within three days. This is a statutory basis for what several states had already introduced through administrative directions; the BNSS makes it a national-level right.

Mandatory forensic visit: Section 176(3) BNSS

Section 176(3) BNSS introduces a provision that is new in Indian criminal procedure: for any offence punishable with seven years of imprisonment or more, a forensic expert must visit the crime scene to collect evidence and document it. This is a structural requirement, not a discretionary one.

The intent is to improve the quality of physical evidence presented at trial, particularly in serious cases where crime-scene documentation has historically been inconsistent. The practical challenge is that forensic infrastructure (forensic science laboratories, trained personnel, and equipment at the district level) varies considerably across states, and the provision will only be as effective as the capacity available to implement it.

Video-conferencing for trials: Section 530 BNSS

The BNSS explicitly provides for the use of video-conferencing in trials and other proceedings, including examination of witnesses, recording of statements, and appearances before courts. The CrPC had limited and ad hoc provisions in this area; the BNSS systematises it. This has implications for undertrial prisoners, witnesses in sensitive cases, and proceedings involving accused persons in far-flung locations.

Trial in absentia: Section 356 BNSS

Section 356 BNSS allows courts to proceed with trial of proclaimed offenders (persons who have absconded to evade trial) in their absence. The court must wait at least 90 days from the date of framing of charges before commencing trial in absentia. This addresses the phenomenon of accused persons who abscond after charges are framed and thereby halt proceedings indefinitely.

Investigation timelines under the BNSS

The BNSS introduces mandatory timelines at several stages of the investigation. These are among the most practically significant changes for defence lawyers, prosecutors, and judges.

Charge-sheet filing under Section 193 BNSS:

  • Offences punishable with imprisonment of less than ten years: charge-sheet must be filed within 60 days from the date of the FIR.
  • Offences punishable with imprisonment exceeding ten years, life imprisonment, or death: charge-sheet must be filed within 90 days from the date of the FIR.
  • Sexual offences under Sections 64 to 71 BNS (rape and related) and certain POCSO offences: investigation must be completed within two months from the date of the FIR.

If the police fail to file the charge-sheet within these periods, the accused acquires a right to default bail under Section 187 BNSS, provided they apply for it promptly.

Charge-framing at the sessions stage: The BNSS mandates that a sessions court must frame charges within 60 days from the first hearing on charge.

Judgment after arguments: After arguments are completed, the court must pronounce judgment within 30 days, extendable to 45 days for reasons recorded in writing.

StageTimeline under BNSS
Charge-sheet (offences below 10 years)60 days from FIR
Charge-sheet (10 years / life / death)90 days from FIR
Charge-sheet (rape / POCSO)60 days from FIR
Framing of charges (sessions court)Within 60 days of first hearing
Judgment after arguments30 days (extendable to 45)

These timelines are aspirational in a system where courts carry heavy dockets, but they are now statutory requirements and can be relied on in bail applications and applications to expedite matters.

Trial-stage changes under the BNSS

Beyond timelines, the BNSS makes several structural changes to how trials unfold.

Preliminary inquiry before FIR registration: For offences punishable between three and seven years, the police may conduct a preliminary inquiry (up to 14 days) before registering an FIR. This is a significant departure from the mandatory registration principle and has attracted criticism from civil liberties lawyers who argue it creates scope for delaying or suppressing FIR registration.

Supply of documents to the accused: The BNSS mandates that the police provide the accused, at the time of the first appearance before a magistrate, with all documents collected during investigation. This is intended to facilitate effective defence preparation.

Victim’s right to be heard before withdrawal of prosecution: Under the BNSS, the victim has a right to be heard if the prosecution seeks to withdraw from a case. This addresses situations where accused persons arrange withdrawal of prosecutions without the victim’s knowledge or consent.

Mandatory medical examination of accused in certain cases: BNSS Section 185 requires a medical examination of an arrested person by a registered medical practitioner if the person is alleged to have committed an offence against another person’s body, wherever the person requests such examination. This provision supports the gathering of corroborative medical evidence in assault and sexual offence cases.

Mercy petition timelines under the BNSS

The BNSS introduces structured timelines for mercy petitions in death penalty cases: an area where the previous law was notoriously unstructured, leading to prolonged delays on death row.

Under Sections 472-473 BNSS:

  • A convict must file a mercy petition with the Governor within 30 days of the final judicial disposal (Supreme Court dismissal of appeal or review, or High Court confirmation with appeal period expired).
  • If the Governor rejects the petition, the convict must file with the President within 60 days of the rejection.
  • Where multiple convicts are involved, all must file within 60 days.
  • The Central Government must seek state government comments and make recommendations to the President within 60 days of receiving the petition.
  • The Central Government must communicate the President’s decision to the state and jail authorities within 48 hours of that decision.

This structure does not take away the constitutional right to petition for mercy under Articles 72 and 161, but it imposes time discipline on a process that previously had none.

BSA: what changed in the law of evidence

The BSA is the closest to a continuity statute of the three: its 170 sections are a modest increase from the IEA’s 167, and the underlying evidentiary framework (relevance, admissibility, burden of proof, examination of witnesses) is recognisably the same. The significant changes are concentrated in the treatment of electronic and digital records.

Electronic records as primary evidence: Section 57 BSA

Under the IEA, electronic records were admissible as secondary evidence, subject to a certificate requirement under Section 65B IEA. This created a recurring problem: courts would often refuse to admit electronic records for want of the correct certificate, and the certificate requirement itself generated considerable litigation about who could issue it and what it had to say.

Section 57 BSA changes the classification: electronic or digital records produced from proper custody are now primary evidence, not secondary evidence. The statute explicitly provides that where an electronic or digital record is stored in multiple storage spaces (including temporary files) in a computer resource, each such automated storage is primary evidence.

Practically, this is a significant upgrade in the status of digital documents, emails, WhatsApp messages, electronic contracts, and server logs in Indian courts. The admissibility hurdle is lower, and the certification infrastructure required for secondary evidence is no longer the gatekeeping mechanism for digital records as a class.

Electronic records as secondary evidence: Section 58 BSA

Where primary electronic evidence is not available, Section 58 BSA expands the categories of secondary evidence to explicitly include digital and electronic formats, alongside the traditional categories of certified copies and oral admissions. The two sections work together: Section 57 sets the threshold for treating an electronic record as primary evidence, and Section 58 governs what counts as secondary evidence when the primary record cannot be produced.

Certificate requirement: refined but retained

The BSA does not entirely abolish the certificate requirement for electronic evidence; it refines who can issue it and what it must contain, addressing the main sources of litigation under Section 65B IEA. For practitioners dealing with electronic evidence in cases governed by the BSA, the precise certificate requirements deserve careful reading, as courts are still developing their practice on the new provision.

Video recordings as primary evidence

The BSA explicitly provides that video recordings in electronic form are primary evidence. This is particularly relevant for CCTV footage, body-worn camera recordings, and video evidence in matters involving violence or public order offences.

The new codes attracted professional criticism before and after they came into force. Understanding these concerns is part of understanding the law as it actually operates.

Parliamentary process: The bills were passed in December 2023 at a time when a majority of opposition members had been suspended from Parliament. This meant the legislation received limited debate, and critics argue that a reform of this magnitude required broader deliberative process. As The Leaflet reports, the Bar Council of India received representations from bar associations across the country signalling intent to agitate unless the laws were suspended for wider consultation.

Substantive scope: Multiple bar bodies and civil liberties organisations have argued that several provisions of the new codes are more coercive than the colonial-era statutes they replace, rather than less. The concerns centre on:

  • The preliminary inquiry provision (up to 14 days before FIR registration) as a mechanism for suppressing complaints;
  • Section 152 BNS (the sedition-equivalent) as a provision whose undefined scope may allow for broader use than Section 124A IPC, despite the formal removal of the word “sedition”;
  • Section 187 BNSS permitting police custody for up to 60 days in parts (against 15 days under the CrPC), which critics argue increases scope for custodial pressure.

Infrastructure gap: The mandatory forensic visit provision (Section 176(3) BNSS for offences punishable at seven or more years) is widely welcomed in principle, but the forensic science infrastructure in most states is underfunded and understaffed. Without commensurate investment, the provision risks being formally honoured but practically empty.

Transition burden: For courts and lawyers managing old-regime and new-regime matters simultaneously, the dual-track system imposes a significant administrative and cognitive load. The section numbers lawyers have spent careers working with no longer refer to the same provisions, and practitioners must maintain familiarity with both codes for an extended period.

These concerns are noted here not as settled conclusions but as live professional debates. The coming years of case law and government implementation reports will show which criticisms were borne out and which were resolved in practice.

If you are doing detailed research on a current criminal matter, see our guide on good law checking and citators in India for how to verify whether a case you are relying on was decided under the old or new regime.

For anyone doing legal research on Indian criminal law after 1 July 2024, the shift in section numbers is the most immediate practical consequence.

Section 302 IPC no longer self-evidently means murder to a reader of a charge-sheet or FIR. A charge-sheet filed in August 2024 citing “Section 103” for murder and “Section 64” for rape is using the BNS, not the IPC. A judgment from 2020 citing Section 302 for murder is citing the IPC, and the BNS equivalent is Section 103. A lawyer who reads both documents in the same sitting needs to actively track which code each one is working in.

This is exactly the kind of mapping discipline that is now a core part of criminal law diligence. When you search for case law on murder, you need to specify whether you are looking at IPC 302 or BNS 103, and ideally you need both, because the courts are still deciding new matters under both codes. An answer about a current offence has to point to the right code for the right date, with the provision cited. A source-linked legal research workflow that holds both the old and new section numbering together is what keeps this mapping reliable across a dual-track docket.

Old judgments remain fully valid as precedent for the legal principles they establish: the common law of India on murder, rape, cheating, and evidence was not repealed, even if the section numbers moved. The Supreme Court’s neutral citation system, which uses year and serial number rather than section references, is particularly useful in this context because citations do not need to be updated when sections are renumbered.

For research spanning old and new codes, our pieces on how to read and brief an Indian judgment and AI legal research in India and avoiding hallucinations are worth reading alongside this overview. The risk of an AI tool confusing IPC sections with BNS sections is exactly the kind of hallucination that grounded, source-linked research is designed to prevent.

Niyam searches across its corpus of 72,000+ Indian judgments with awareness of the old and new section numbering, so a search for a BNS provision can surface relevant IPC-era judgments on the same principle and vice versa, with the applicable code clearly marked.

Frequently asked questions

When did the new criminal laws come into force?

The BNS, BNSS, and BSA came into force on 1 July 2024. Parliament passed all three in December 2023. The gap between enactment and commencement gave courts, police, prosecutors, and lawyers some months to prepare. All three codes took effect together on the same day.

Does the new law apply to a case where the FIR was filed before 1 July 2024?

No. The transition is governed by the date of the offence, not the date of the FIR. If the offence was committed before 1 July 2024, the IPC applies to the charges, the CrPC applies to procedure, and the Evidence Act applies at trial, regardless of when the FIR was filed, when the charge-sheet was submitted, or when the trial began.

Why does the BNS have fewer sections than the IPC?

The IPC had 511 sections accumulated over more than 160 years, with many overlapping, redundant, or duplicated provisions. The BNS consolidated these into 358 sections. Some offences that were separately listed in the IPC are now subsumed under single provisions; others were removed because they were covered by standalone legislation (e.g., certain UAPA-related offences). The consolidation does not mean fewer offences exist; it means the drafting is more compressed.

What is a “zero FIR” and how is it different from a regular FIR?

A zero FIR is an FIR registered by a police station for an offence that occurred outside that station’s territorial jurisdiction. Section 173(1) BNSS mandates that any police officer must register a cognizable offence even if the offence did not happen in their area. The FIR is then transferred to the appropriate station. The zero FIR prevents a complainant from being turned away simply because they went to the “wrong” station.

Can I now file an FIR electronically?

Yes. Section 173 BNSS provides a statutory basis for e-FIRs. You can give information about a cognizable offence by electronic communication. The one condition is that the informant must physically sign the e-FIR at a police station within three days of electronic submission. States are at varying stages of implementing the infrastructure for this.

What is the mandatory forensic visit requirement under the BNSS?

Section 176(3) BNSS requires that for any offence punishable with seven years of imprisonment or more, a forensic expert must visit the crime scene to collect evidence. This is not optional or at the police’s discretion; it is a mandatory requirement. Its practical implementation depends on state forensic science laboratory capacity, which varies considerably.

What is the difference between Section 124A IPC (sedition) and Section 152 BNS?

Section 124A IPC criminalised exciting “disaffection” towards the Government. Section 152 BNS replaces it with an offence of acts endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India. Key differences: Section 152 requires the act to be done “purposely or knowingly” (explicit mens rea); it removes the word “disaffection” and requires a link to secession, armed rebellion, or subversive activities; it explicitly covers electronic communication and financial support. Critics note that “subversive activities” is undefined, which may give the provision a broad reach. The maximum penalty has been raised from three years (lower bracket under 124A) to seven years under Section 152.

Is the offence of sedition still in Indian law?

The word “sedition” no longer appears in Indian criminal law. Section 124A IPC has been replaced by Section 152 BNS. The offence of sedition as classically understood (excitement of disaffection against the government) has been formally dropped. What exists in its place is a provision targeting acts that endanger sovereignty, unity, and integrity, which overlaps with but is not identical to the old sedition offence.

What is Section 69 BNS and does it have an IPC equivalent?

Section 69 BNS creates a standalone offence of sexual intercourse by deceitful means, including a false promise of marriage, a false promise of employment or promotion, or suppression of identity. It applies where the conduct does not amount to rape. The maximum sentence is ten years and a fine. The IPC had no directly equivalent provision; cases of this type were prosecuted under rape provisions, with courts developing inconsistent interpretations of whether consent obtained by a false promise vitiated the consent. Section 69 BNS resolves that uncertainty by creating a separate, lower-grade offence for these situations.

How is community service imposed under the BNS?

Community service under Section 4(f) BNS is available only for six specified offences, not generally. For most of those offences it is an alternative to imprisonment. For Section 303(2) BNS (theft of property worth less than Rs 5,000, first offence, property returned), it is the only punishment available: the court cannot impose imprisonment. The BNSS defines community service as unpaid work for the benefit of the community, done on the court’s order, with no remuneration to the convict.

What are the timelines for filing a charge-sheet under the BNSS?

Under Section 193 BNSS: for offences punishable with less than ten years of imprisonment, the charge-sheet must be filed within 60 days of the FIR; for offences punishable with more than ten years, life imprisonment, or death, it must be filed within 90 days; for rape and related sexual offences under Sections 64-71 BNS, the investigation must be completed within two months. Missing these deadlines gives the accused the right to apply for default bail under Section 187 BNSS.

What happens if a court does not pronounce judgment within 30 days after arguments?

Under the BNSS, judgment must be pronounced within 30 days of the completion of arguments, extendable to 45 days for reasons recorded in writing. The BNSS does not specify that a judgment pronounced after the deadline is void; the provision is a directive standard. However, an accused or victim can use the delay as a basis for an application to the High Court under Article 226 writ jurisdiction for expedition of proceedings.

What is trial in absentia under the BNSS and when does it apply?

Section 356 BNSS allows a court to proceed with trial of a “proclaimed offender”: a person who has been declared a proclaimed offender because they absconded to evade trial. The court must wait at least 90 days after framing charges before commencing trial in absentia. The provision is designed to prevent accused persons from halting proceedings indefinitely by disappearing. The accused, if later apprehended, retains certain rights to challenge the conviction.

How does the BSA change the admissibility of WhatsApp messages and digital records?

Under the old Indian Evidence Act, electronic records were secondary evidence requiring a Section 65B certificate, which generated substantial litigation about certificate requirements. The BSA reclassifies electronic records produced from proper custody as primary evidence under Section 57 BSA. WhatsApp messages, emails, and other digital communications, if produced from proper custody, are now primary evidence. Video recordings in electronic form are explicitly classified as primary evidence. The certification requirement has been retained but refined.

Does the Supreme Court’s position on Section 65B IEA certificates still apply under the BSA?

The Supreme Court’s landmark rulings on Section 65B IEA certificates (notably Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal) were decided under the old Evidence Act. Under the BSA, electronic records are primary evidence (Section 57 BSA) rather than secondary evidence, which changes the procedural landscape significantly. Courts are still developing their approach to the BSA’s certificate requirements. Practitioners should track emerging High Court decisions on this point and check our good law checking guide for how to verify whether a ruling was decided under the IEA or the BSA.

What is organised crime under the BNS and how does it differ from state MCOCA laws?

Section 111 BNS defines organised crime as any continuing unlawful activity for material benefit carried out by a group or syndicate, covering kidnapping, extortion, cybercrime, trafficking, and contract killing, among others. State laws like the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) have similar provisions but apply only within the relevant state. Section 111 BNS is a central law applicable across India. The relationship between Section 111 BNS and state organised crime laws will be worked out by courts over time; generally, the more specific provision (the state law in states that have one) is expected to apply in preference where it covers the same conduct.

How does Section 113 BNS on terrorism relate to the UAPA?

Section 113 BNS defines terrorism and is triggered by the same categories of conduct as Section 15 UAPA. An officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police must decide whether to register a case under Section 113 BNS or under the UAPA. The key practical difference is procedural: UAPA cases are subject to the special procedural regime of that Act (including the designation of special courts and the extended custody provisions), while Section 113 BNS cases proceed under the BNSS. Commentators have noted that Section 113 BNS may be broader in intent than Section 15 UAPA on one reading, because the BNS extends to acts intended to “intimidate the general public or disturb public order,” which the UAPA does not explicitly cover.

Do old judgments on IPC offences still have precedential value under the BNS?

Yes. The substantive legal principles established in cases decided under the IPC continue to be valid as precedent under corresponding BNS provisions, where the text of the provision is substantially the same. Courts have not been asked to re-establish from scratch what amounts to murder, rape, or cheating; the body of case law is carried forward. The practical task is to identify the equivalent BNS provision and check whether the substantive test in the old judgment is consistent with the new section’s language.

What are the key concerns raised by bar associations about the new codes?

Bar associations across India raised several concerns: the bills were passed without sufficient Parliamentary debate (during a period of widespread opposition suspension); certain provisions are alleged to be more coercive than the colonial-era provisions they replace; the preliminary inquiry window before FIR registration is seen as creating scope for suppressing complaints; Section 152 BNS is criticised as potentially broader than Section 124A IPC in practice despite formal changes in language; and the mandatory forensic requirement cannot be implemented equitably without significant forensic infrastructure investment. The Bar Council of India asked bar associations to refrain from agitation but committed to take up concerns with the Union Government.

How do I identify whether a case was decided under the old or new codes?

Check the date of the offence (stated in the FIR or judgment). If before 1 July 2024, the old codes apply. Cross-check the section numbers cited in the judgment or charge-sheet: IPC provisions run to 511 sections; BNS provisions run to 358. A murder case citing Section 302 is IPC; one citing Section 103 is BNS. For older judgments, the citation will typically not say “IPC” or “BNS” explicitly; you identify the regime by the section number and the offence date. For research across both regimes, Niyam’s corpus of 72,000+ Indian judgments is tagged by applicable code.

Researching criminal matters across old and new codes

For any matter that touches these three codes, the starting discipline is the same: identify the offence date, confirm which regime applies, and cite the right provision for the right date. Judgments across both regimes remain relevant precedent. The mapping from one set of section numbers to the other is not always obvious and should be verified against the statute rather than assumed from secondary sources.

Niyam searches its corpus of 72,000+ Indian judgments with awareness of the IPC-to-BNS and CrPC-to-BNSS transitions, so research into a BNS provision can surface relevant IPC-era authority on the same substantive question. All research stays private, never sold or used to train public models. For questions about a specific matter, contact [email protected] or start a research session at app.niyam.ai.