Modernization in the New Criminal Code (BNSS 2023): An Analytical Review

Abstract 

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) replaced the Code of Criminal  Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) with an explicitly modernising, technology-forward, and (on paper)  victim-centred procedural framework. This article critically analyses BNSS’s major reforms— electronic processes, Zero FIR, time-bound investigation and adjudication, mandatory forensic  engagement, reworked arrest/detention and bail rules, accountability mechanisms for police  and prosecutors, and the attendant constitutional and implementation challenges. The analysis  integrates statutory text, government handbooks, and contemporary scholarship to assess  whether BNSS meaningfully advances procedural justice or risks operational and rights-based  problems in practice. Key recommendations are offered to reduce implementation risk and  protect fundamental rights.

Introduction: Why procedural modernization matters 

Criminal procedure is the engine of justice: substantive criminal law (what conduct is illegal)  is inert unless procedure (how suspects are investigated, charged, tried, and punished) functions  to discover truth, protect rights, and deliver timely outcomes. BNSS is framed as a wholesale  modernisation of India’s procedural code—adopting digital processes, codifying victim  protections, imposing strict timelines, and institutionalising forensic science—measures aimed  at correcting chronic delay, opacity, and uneven police practices under the CrPC. The statute  represents both a technical update and a policy shift that demands careful evaluation:  modernization can strengthen justice only if it aligns with constitutional safeguards and real world capacity. The official BNSS text and government handbooks set out these changes;  independent commentary and academic analysis identify both promise and risk. 

1. Electronic processes and the digitisation of criminal procedure 

1.1 Statutory entrenchment of e-processes 

BNSS makes electronic service and recording—the filing of FIRs, chargesheets, summons,  warrants, and the recording of evidence—central to procedure. The Act expressly authorises e FIRs and electronic service, and empowers courts and police to rely on digital records as  primary evidence. This is a structural departure from CrPC, where technology use was  facultative and developed largely through judicial direction and administrative reform rather  than statutory mandate. The codification of e-processes promises faster notice to parties,  searchable records, and (if implemented with integrity) improved transparency. 

1.2 Potential benefits and operational caveats 

Digital records reduce transcription error, preserve audiovisual proof (e.g., bodycam video of  searches), and can enable real-time case tracking. However, the benefits depend on  infrastructure: reliable broadband, secure servers, standardized formats, authentication  protocols, and data-protection safeguards. Where forensic vans, CCTNS upgrades, and state level digital capacity lag, the statutory promise may translate into inconsistent practice. Recent  official guidance and state initiatives (forensic vans, public awareness drives) indicate progress,  but the implementation gap is real and uneven.

2. Zero FIR and reporting reforms: victim-centric design or procedural friction? 2.1 Zero FIR as statutory rule 

BNSS introduces a statutory Zero FIR mechanism permitting any police station to register an  FIR regardless of territorial jurisdiction—codifying a practice previously applied by courts and  police in exigent cases. The statutory provision aims to remove delays caused by jurisdictional  limbo and to preserve perishable evidence by ensuring immediate registration and preliminary  action. The government issued Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and training material to  operationalise Zero FIR and e-FIRs. 

2.2 Analytical assessment 

Zero FIR is a clear victim-favouring reform: for sexual offences, missing the initial window  for evidence collection can be determinative; a no-wrong-door reporting rule reduces that risk.  However, the reform shifts administrative complexity to inter-station coordination  (transmission of records to territorial station), raises questions about which station assumes  investigative primacy, and requires robust digital record transfer and chain-of-custody  protocols to ensure evidentiary integrity. Without clear, enforced interoperability standards,  Zero FIR could spur procedural disputes that reintroduce delay—the very thing it seeks to cure. 

3. Time-bound investigation and adjudication: promises and perils 

3.1 Statutory timelines 

BNSS imposes explicit timelines for investigation and judgment delivery: many cases are  directed to be investigated within 90 days, with extensions for complex or serious crimes up to  180 days (and special rules for very serious offences); judgments are to be pronounced within  30 days of trial conclusion (extendable in limited circumstances). These targets are among the  most important procedural changes and are intended to reduce pendency and prevent protracted  pretrial detention. 

3.2 Rights-protective logic and unintended consequences 

Time limits incentivise efficiency and protect the accused from indefinite pretrial limbo. Yet  fixed timelines can produce perverse incentives: investigators may defer thorough forensic  work to meet deadlines, or seek repeated extensions; prosecutors may file superficial charges;  courts, pressured to produce judgments quickly, may compress argument or defer nuanced  reasoning to appellate review. To deliver on the promise of speed without compromising  fairness, BNSS timelines must be paired with investments in personnel, forensic capacity, and  case-management systems—and with judicial guidelines that preserve deliberation where  necessary. Empirical monitoring is essential.

4. Mandatory forensic involvement and scientific evidence 

4.1 Statutory mandate for forensic science 

BNSS requires forensic investigation for offences carrying seven years’ imprisonment or more  and mandates that forensic experts visit scenes and record collection processes, including  audiovisual documentation. The statute thus elevates scientific investigation from an optional  police tool to a procedural norm. 

4.2 Impact analysis: quality, uniformity, and capacity constraints 

Mandatory forensics is analytically sound: it recognizes that modern criminal fact-finding  increasingly depends on scientific evidence. The caveat is capacity. Many states lack adequate  forensic labs, trained personnel, or mobile evidence-collection units; cross-state reliance and  sample transport raise chain-of-custody and delay issues. Some states have begun procuring  forensic vans and upgrading labs, but national scaling will require targeted funding, training,  accreditation systems, and forensic backlogs reduction strategies to avoid shifting bottlenecks  from courts to labs. Peer-reviewed commentary stresses that statutory mandates without  commensurate capacity investments risk converting a procedural gain into a new point of  failure.  

5. Arrest, detention, custody and bail: codifying judicial guidance 

5.1 Arrest restrictions and video-documented searches 

BNSS codifies restrictions on arbitrary arrest (bringing some of the Arnesh Kumar and other  jurisprudence into statute), prescribes videography of searches and seizures, and sets limits on  handcuffing and other coercive practices—subject to exceptions for violent or habitual  offenders. The Act also refines police custody periods and authorises segmented police custody  within judicial custody windows. 

5.2 Custody timelines and bail implications 

By allowing distinct segments of police custody authorised within broader judicial custody  periods, BNSS provides police structured access to suspects for investigation. Critics warn this  could effectively extend de facto detention if police repeatedly seek custody segments, raising  potential for bail denial where investigative custody is said to be ‘necessary’. The balancing act  is delicate: investigators need time for evidence collection, but extended pretrial custody  undermines liberty. Transparent, judicially reviewable protocols and limits on successive  custody segments are necessary to prevent arbitrary extension.

6. Victim rights, information access, and participatory procedures 

6.1 Strengthened victim entitlements 

BNSS formalises several victim-centric provisions: mandatory updates to victims/informants  on case progress, access to certain prosecution materials, protections during testimony (e.g.,  gender-sensitive procedures for recording statements), and provisions intended to prevent  secondary victimisation. These statutory rights aim to correct a longstanding deficit where  victims were procedurally peripheral. 

6.2 Analytical view: procedural inclusion vs. prosecutorial discretion 

Greater victim access to information may improve trust and cooperation; yet it also raises  evidentiary and defense-rights questions—what material must be shared, and when, without  prejudicing defense strategy? BNSS leaves operational detail to rules and prosecutorial  practice; without clear delineation and safeguards about disclosure timing and content, the  reform could generate new pretrial disputes. Best practice demands calibrated disclosure  regimes that respect both victim participation and accused’s fair-trial rights. Academic analyses  recommend phased disclosure and judicial supervision. 

7. Police accountability, performance metrics, and institutional oversight 7.1 Statutory accountability measures 

BNSS introduces mechanisms for accountability: digital record-keeping to trace investigative  delays, explicit duties on police to inform victims, and potential disciplinary consequences for  non-compliance. The law contemplates performance indexing (e.g., Digital Policing Index) to  track police efficiency and compliance with procedural norms. 

7.2 Risks of metrics-driven policing 

Quantitative performance measures can motivate desired behaviour but can also produce  perverse outcomes—over-recording of “closed” cases, prioritising easy but low-value  detections to improve metrics, or manipulation of timelines. A defensible accountability  architecture must pair metrics with qualitative reviews, external oversight (judicial and  civilian), and safeguards against metrics gaming. Independent audits and transparency of index  methodology are essential.

8. Plea Bargaining, Summary Dispositions, and Case Management under the BNSS 

Modern criminal procedure increasingly recognises that a justice system cannot rely solely on  full trials to dispose of cases. High-volume criminal jurisdictions, such as India’s, require  calibrated mechanisms that can resolve appropriate cases without prolonged adversarial  processes, while still safeguarding due process. BNSS’s reforms in plea bargaining, summary  trials, and case management must therefore be understood as part of a broader shift towards a  more managed criminal docket. 

8.1 Expansion and Systematisation of Plea Bargaining 

Although plea bargaining was introduced into Indian law in 2005, it remained under-utilised  due to cultural hesitation, limited awareness among defence counsel, and the absence of  coherent procedural guidance. BNSS attempts to remodel this space by embedding plea  negotiations within a clearer, more predictable framework. 

The statute broadens eligibility and clarifies procedural steps for negotiated pleas. The goal is  to create an orderly space in which defendants can accept responsibility in exchange for  reduced punishment without fear that their admissions will be misused against them if  negotiations fail. In theory, this gives defendants a meaningful alternative to protracted trials  in cases where the evidence is strong and the harm is limited. 

The core analytic tension lies in protecting voluntariness. In congested systems, the structural  pressure to plead guilty may be strong, and a poorly resourced defendant may perceive plea  bargaining as the only feasible exit. BNSS does require judicial scrutiny of whether the plea is  informed and voluntary, yet practical effectiveness depends on judicial culture and the  availability of legal assistance. Research on comparative jurisdictions indicates that meaningful  voluntariness hinges on three factors: access to counsel, transparent disclosure of evidence, and  judicial inquiry that is more than a mere procedural formality. BNSS provides the skeletal  framework, but institutional practice will determine whether bargaining becomes a rights enhancing tool or a mechanism for accelerating convictions without adequate safeguards. 

8.2 Summary Trial Expansion and Its Implications 

BNSS enlarges the categories of offences eligible for summary trial. The policy rationale is  straightforward: minor offences consume disproportionate judicial time, even though the  factual matrices tend to be simple and the penalties modest. By expanding summary  disposition, BNSS seeks to reallocate judicial resources toward complex and serious crimes. 

The analytical question is not whether summary trials are useful but how they are structured.  A summary process, by definition, curtails certain procedural steps, including detailed  recording of evidence. Such curtailment is permissible under constitutional standards only  when the accused’s opportunity to challenge the case remains genuine. The BNSS provisions  must therefore be interpreted in harmony with principles of natural justice; summary does not  mean perfunctory. 

In jurisdictions where summary trials have succeeded, three design features were critical: (1)  strict eligibility criteria to prevent administrative overreach; (2) a clear record of reasons for invoking summary jurisdiction; and (3) the availability of prompt appellate scrutiny. BNSS  theoretically accommodates such protections, yet their enforcement will depend on judicial  training and local court administration. If implemented with fidelity, expanded summary  jurisdiction could reduce pendency without undermining procedural fairness. If implemented  mechanically, it may risk superficial adjudication. 

8.3 Case Management as a Structural Reform 

The BNSS reforms in plea bargaining and summary trials are part of a broader movement  toward case management, a concept long familiar in commercial litigation but relatively new  to criminal procedure in India. Case management refers to a structured set of administrative  and judicial techniques used to move cases through the system in a predictable and efficient  manner. 

BNSS incorporates case management logic in several ways. Time limits for investigation,  mandatory progress reports, electronic scheduling, and digital record-keeping are all  managerial tools intended to reduce the friction of paper-heavy, manually coordinated  proceedings. The statute envisions courts adopting proactive oversight roles: issuing timelines  for evidence production, identifying issues early, and preventing tactical delay by either side. 

The theoretical advantage of criminal case management is that it converts trial courts from  passive recipients of filings into active regulators of the litigation process. However, such a  transformation presupposes adequate staffing, IT infrastructure, and training. Without these  foundations, managerial tools risk creating procedural obligations that courts cannot discharge  consistently, generating compliance gaps and potential grounds for challenge. The system must  therefore be careful not to import managerial models from high-resource jurisdictions without  calibrating them to local capacity. 

8.4 Interrelation of the Three Reform Strands 

Plea bargaining, summary trials, and case management are not discrete silos. They form an  integrated workflow: plea bargaining can divert eligible cases early; summary trials can  efficiently resolve low-complexity matters; and case management ensures that both full trials  and alternative pathways unfold within rational timelines. If implemented cohesively, these  mechanisms can significantly reduce pendency and allow courts to focus their resources on  cases that genuinely require full evidentiary exploration. 

From a rights perspective, the challenge is to ensure that efficiency does not eclipse fairness.  Efficiency is a legitimate public objective, but criminal procedure exists ultimately to safeguard  liberty and ensure accuracy. BNSS’s reforms will meet constitutional expectations only if  courts rigorously protect voluntariness in plea negotiations, avoid overbroad use of summary  powers, and use case management to coordinate rather than compress the adversarial process.

9. Constitutional and jurisprudential considerations 

9.1 Fair-trial safeguards 

Any procedural overhaul must withstand constitutional scrutiny—particularly Articles 14  (equality), 20 (protection in respect of conviction for offences), 21 (right to life and personal  liberty), and principles like the presumption of innocence. BNSS attempts to embed safeguards  (arrest limits, disclosure rules), but several provisions—extended segmented police custody,  strict timelines that might compress adversarial process, or mandatory forensic rules without  capacity—present potential grounds for rights-based challenge if implementation undermines  substantive fairness. Judicial review will likely shape the statute’s contours in practice. 

9.2 Federalism and resource allocation 

Criminal justice implementation is a shared Centre–State responsibility. BNSS’s mandates  (forensics, digital infrastructure, training) require substantial state-level investment. Disparities  in state capacity could create a two-tier practical regime where citizens in well-funded states  benefit markedly relative to poorer states—raising equity concerns and pressuring central grant  programmes or targeted national rollouts of forensic and digital infrastructure. 

10. Implementation challenges  

1. Infrastructure gaps: uneven digital and forensic capacity across states.  
2. Training and culture change: police and prosecutors need systematic retraining for  digital evidence, victim-centred procedures, and rights-sensitive custody practice.  
3. Data security and privacy: e-records and audiovisual evidence require secure storage,  access controls, and clear retention policies.  
4. Judicial capacity: courts need case-management tools and procedural guidance to meet  timeline expectations without sacrificing reasoned adjudication. 

     11. Comparative note: BNSS versus CRPC—continuity and departure 

BNSS retains the broad hierarchical architecture of criminal justice—police investigation,  magistrate oversight, trial courts, and appellate review—but departs from CrPC through three  structural innovations: (1) statutory digital primary records and e-procedures, (2) mandatory  forensic engagement for serious offences, and (3) explicit time-bound obligations across  investigation and judgment. These are not merely cosmetic changes; they reframe how  evidence is collected, how victims participate, and how state accountability is monitored. The  transformative potential is real, yet contingent on capacity and rights-preserving  implementation. 

12. Conclusion 

BNSS is a bold legislative attempt to align India’s criminal procedural law with twenty-first  century exigencies—digital records, scientific investigation, victim participation, and speed.  The statute’s analytic logic is coherent: procedural truth-seeking benefits from science and  transparency; victims need structured participation; delay corrodes justice. Yet law does not act  alone. BNSS’s success depends on calibrated implementation: infrastructure, training, privacy  safeguards, legal aid expansion, and vigilant judicial oversight. Without these, modernization  risks becoming technocratic reform that amplifies existing inequalities or curtails rights in the  name of efficiency. To make BNSS a durable improvement, policymakers must pair statutory  change with financed implementation plans, monitored rollouts, and mechanisms for rapid  corrective learning. 

Citation  

1. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, No. 46 of 2023 (India) (enacted Dec.  25, 2023). Ministry of Home Affairs+1 
2. Ministry of Home Affairs, Handbook on the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,  2023 (BPRD). BPRD
3. Bureau of Police Research & Development (BPRD), Comparison summary — BNSS  vs CrPC (correspondence table and summary). BPRD 
4. SOP on Zero FIR & e-FIR (BPRD / NCL 2023). BPRD 
5. IndiaCode: Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (programmatic record). India Code
6. PRS Legislative Research, “The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Key  Issues and Analysis.” PRS Legislative Research 
7. Comparative academic studies and articles (selected): IJIRL & IJIRT comparative  studies on BNSS/CrPC (2024–2025). IJIRL+1 
8. LiveLaw collection of the BNSS text and commentary. Live Law 
9. Times of India reporting on forensic vans and local implementation examples (2025).  The Times of India+1