The Brijlal Committee-

Three new Bills were introduced in the Lower House of the Parliament (Lok Sabha) on 11.08.2023 to replace the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with new ones. As per the procedure, the Bills were referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee (The Brij Lal Committee) for suggestions which submitted the report (The Brij Lal Committee Report- 2023) on 10.11.2023 under the Chairmanship of Mr. Brijlal, a member of the Upper House (Rajya Sabha).

On 11.12.2023  the Central Government withdrew the newly proposed bills which were expected to overhaul the Indian criminal justice system. These bills were the Bhaartiya Naagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) Bill,  2023, Bhaartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Bill, 2023, Bhaartiya Saakshya Bill, 2023. The Government will introduce new Bills after making appropriate amendments and modifications suggested by the Parliament Standing Committee. The house was informed so by the Union Home Minister Amit Shah.

Recommendations of the Committee-

• Criminalisation of Adultery in gender-neutral form.
• Clause 219(1) pertains to offences against marriage, which are covered under Sections 79 to 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Committee has recommended replacing the words ‘Chapter V’ in the Clause with the words ‘Section 80 to 83’. This change would ensure accuracy and alignment with the specific legal provisions related to marriage, rather than the broader subject of Offences against Women and Children addressed in Chapter V.
• Retention of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. If it is repealed completely then it would mean not penalising non-consensual sexual offences against men, transgenders and bestiality.
• In the Proviso to Clause 222(1), it is advisable to replace the phrase ‘having an intellectual disability requiring higher support needs’ with the words ‘having an intellectual disability’.
• Section 66 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita should also be included in the offences referred to in the corresponding clause so that all the corresponding offences referred to in the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita are covered.
• In Clause 482 of BNSS, the words ‘the accused may be required for police custody beyond the first fifteen days’ may be added.
• Clause 210(3) is a new addition in BNSS and has no analogous provision under the CrPC. Therefore, considering the possibility of misuse and to ensure balance, a strict timeline for submission of the report by the officer superior to such public servant should be introduced as a procedural safeguard in Clause 210(3), and a suitable amendment should be brought in the Clause.
• Amendment in the cross-referencing error in the fourth proviso to Clause 223 of BNSS.
• As per the settled law, discharge can occur before charges have been framed, while Clause 262 (1) of the BNSS suggests otherwise and states that a discharge application can be filed ‘within a period of sixty days from the date of framing of charges. The Committee agrees with the suggestion received in respect of this Clause and feels that ‘within a period of sixty days from the date of framing of charges’ should be replaced with ‘within a period of sixty days from the date of supply of documents’, to align the Clause with established legal principles.
• The Committee compared the provisions of Clauses 272 and 279 of the Sanhita. In Clause 272 of the BNSS, in case of non-appearance of the complainant on the day fixed for hearing of the case, a time of thirty days is granted by the Magistrate to the complainant, before considering discharge of the accused. The Committee notes that there is no such provision in Clause 279. The Committee feels that it would be appropriate to insert a provision in Clause 279 to provide a time of thirty days to the complainant in case of his non-appearance on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused or any day to which the hearing may be adjourned, before considering acquittal of the accused.
• Removal of the word ‘Investigating Officer’ may be removed from Clause 336 of BNSS.
• The language of Clause 435 needs to be rephrased. The Clause should begin with the words ‘Every appeal under section 418 or section 419…’ instead of ‘Every other appeal under section 418 or section 419’.
• The matter regarding the continuance of an appeal after the death of an accused may be looked into.

Committee Report Pdf-