India’s criminal laws have been in the spotlight recently, a focus driven by various issues arising out of their design and implementation. The Indian Penal Code (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and Indian Evidence Act are widely discussed in relation to these concerns. In recent times, several bills have been tabled with a vision to reform the substantive criminal law, particularly within the realms of the IPC, CrPC, and the Indian Evidence Act. Yet, significant parts of India’s Criminal Justice System, like Special and Local Laws (SLLs), have remained overlooked during these reformative discussions.
What are Special and Local Laws?
Special and Local Laws are specific legislations tailored to address unique legal matters within a given region or state, reflecting the diverse cultural norms and unique challenges across India. These laws differentiate themselves from the overarching regulations articulated in the Indian Penal Code. An integral part of India’s Criminal Justice System, SLLs encompass important offenses and procedures, participating significantly in cognizable offenses where authority figures can arrest without needing a warrant. As of 2021, about 39.9% of all cognizable offences were registered under SLLs.
Ambiguities in SLLs
Reforming SLLs is imperative due to a variety of issues ranging from ambiguous definitions to lack of uniformity in legal processes. Some SLLs, like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967, feature vague definitions of offenses such as ‘terrorist act,’ ‘unlawful activity,’ and ‘organized crime.’ This lack of clarity can lead to misuse of laws and infringement on the due process of law.
Variabilities in Legal Processes
The geographic specificity of SLLs often results in variable treatment of individuals or groups, thereby resulting in disparities in access to justice. This variability can create uncertainties for individuals and businesses, making it challenging to comprehend legal rights and obligations.
Inherent Indiscretions in SLLs
Inherent indiscretions within these laws often lead to inefficiencies. An example of such a situation is the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act of 2012, where consensual sexual activities between minors have been criminalised. The Supreme Court has also cast doubt on the functioning of these acts. In 2021, during the case of P. Mohanraj versus M/s Shah Brothers Ispat Ltd., the court referred to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as a ‘civil sheep’ in a ‘criminal wolf’s’ clothing.
Undermining of Due Process
SLLs have often undermined the due process of law by allowing increased powers of search, seizure, and admissibility of confessions recorded by police officers. Such shortcomings do not sufficiently safeguard the rights of the accused, raising concerns about fairness and the protection of individual liberties. Restrictive bail provisions in SLLs further infringe on the rights of the accused. An example manifests in Section 43(D)(5) of the UAPA where the bail provisions are exceptionally stringent, making it nearly impossible for those accused under the UAPA to secure bail.
Conclusion
For India to navigate the current issues surrounding SLLs, it is crucial to include and address them within the broader penal code. Their distinct procedures concerning reporting, arrest, investigation, prosecution, and trial should be included in the Code of Criminal Procedure or acknowledged as exceptions. The current omission of SLL aspects in the ongoing reform process necessitates a renewed wave of reforms to rectify these deficiencies. This necessity gains ground considering the recent strengthening of the anti-terrorism laws via amendments to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the NIA Act, and the subsequent concerns raised regarding their stringent nature.
