JAN VISHWAS 2.0 AND 3.0 WILL FIND THE ‘MADHYAM MARG’ BETWEEN TRUSTING AND PUNISHING CITIZENS

THE CONTEXT: The Jan Vishwas Bill 2.0, announced by the Union government, aims to decriminalize over 100 outdated provisions across 17 Acts and 11 ministries, building on the Jan Vishwas Act, 2023, which eliminated 183 criminal provisions under 42 Central Acts to promote ease of doing business and living. This initiative addresses India’s over-criminalization problem, where 370 laws prescribe 7,305 crimes, including minor infractions like milking a cow on the street, and seeks to rationalize penalties while reducing judicial burdens and arbitrary enforcement.

JAN VISHWAS BILL 2.0: ADDRESSING OVERCRIMINALIZATION AND REFORMING INDIA’S LEGAL LANDSCAPE

Background

India’s legal framework is grappling with an overcriminalization crisis, as evidenced by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy’s comprehensive database:

• • 882 central laws contain 7,305 criminal provisions across 370 statutes
  • 75% of these provisions govern everyday activities, while only 25% relate to core criminal laws
  • 3.5 crore pending criminal cases, with 75% of prisoners being undertrials

This situation necessitates urgent reforms to streamline the legal system and enhance governance efficiency.

Key Features of Jan Vishwas Bill 2.0

• • Decriminalization: Aims to decriminalize over 100 outdated provisions across 17 Acts and 11 ministries
  • Regulatory Modernization: Aligns legal framework with evolving technological and business landscapes
  • Trust-based Governance: Enhances ease of doing business and living by reducing fear of criminal penalties for minor infractions

THE CHALLENGES:

1. Disproportionate Punishments: Legislative Contradictions: Misdirected deterrence in laws creates a paradox where minor infractions and grave crimes attract similar penalties, violating Article 14 (equality before law)and proportionality doctrineunder Article 21 (right to life).

Case Studies:

• • Mental Healthcare Act, 2017:
    • Section 91: 6-month jail for administrative lapses (e.g., record-keeping) vs. same punishment for non-consensual brain surgery.
    • Contradiction: Violates Law Commission’s 262nd Report (2015) urging graded penalties based on harm severity.
  • IPC Section 374 (Forced Labour) vs. Motor Vehicles Act:
    • IPC 374: 6-month jail for forced labour (violates Article 23 against exploitation).
    • Motor Vehicles Act: Same punishment for traffic violations (e.g., red-light jump).
    • Judicial Irony: In Modi Ram v. State of MP (1972), SC stressed proportionality, yet legislative gaps persist.

Data:

• • 75% of 7,305 crimes under non-criminal laws (e.g., Cattle Trespass Act, 1871) penalize trivial acts like street cattle milking [Original Query].
  • Global Contrast: UK’s Sentencing Council Act, 2007 mandates structured guidelines; India lacks such frameworks.

 

2. Systemic Inequities: Colonial Legacy & Marginalization: Colonial-era laws(e.g., IPC, CrPC) prioritize state control over justice, disproportionately affecting marginalized groups.

Key Dimensions:

• • Vulnerability Exploitation:
    • NCRB 2022: 75% undertrials belong to SC/ST/OBC/EWS communities; only 7% have completed secondary education.
    •  Khairlanji Massacre (2006): Dalit victims faced delayed justice due to caste bias in procedural laws.
  • Judicial Burden:
    • 3.5 crore pending cases (75% undertrials); 4% conviction rate in IPC crimes (NCRB 2019).
    • Malimath Committee (2003): Highlighted “process as punishment” for the poor but reforms remain unimplemented.

 

Colonial Continuity:

• • Section 144 CrPC: Retained from 1882 code, used to suppress protests (e.g., CAA-NRC agitations).
  • IPC Sedition Law: Retained until 2023; Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) narrowed its scope but failed to prevent misuse.

 

3. Structural Flaws: Procedural & Institutional Dysfunction

Core Issues:

• • Judicial Discretion vs. Arbitrariness:
    • BNS/BNSS: Vague sentencing ranges (e.g., 6 months–7 years for assault) enable bias.
    • Case: Shakti Mills Gangrape (2013): Death penalty by trial court commuted to life imprisonment by HC, exposing inconsistency.
  • Police Accountability:
    • Law Commission Report No. 239 (2012): 60% custodial deaths involve SC/ST communities; only 3% convictions.

 

Institutional Data:

• • Prison Overcrowding: Tihar Jail (Delhi) operates at 230% capacity; inmates sleep in shifts.
  • Forensic Backlog: 85% rape cases pending due to FSL delays (NCRB 2022).

 

4. Modernization Challenges: Reform vs. Reality

Post-Colonial Reforms:

• • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023: Replaces IPC but retains colonial principles (e.g., adultery decriminalized but marital rape unaddressed).
  • Al Jazeera (2024) warns BNSS’s extended police custody (up to 90 days) risks authoritarian misuse.

 

5. Human Rights & Restorative Justice

Constitutional Mandate:

• • Article 39A: Free legal aid remains unimplemented; 80% prisoners unaware of bail rights (NALSA, 2022).
  • Norway’s Halden Prison emphasizes rehabilitation; India’s parole approval rate is 2% (NCRB).

 

Case for Reform:

• • Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer: “Prisons are crime factories; undertrials are victims of systemic apathy”.
  • Vidhi Centre’s Principles: Adopt harm-based criminalization (e.g., decriminalize petty offences per UNODC Guidelines).

VIDHI CENTRE’S FOUR PRINCIPLES FOR LEGAL REFORM 1. Value Protection: Criminalise only acts threatening societal values (e.g., public safety) [Original Query]. 2. Harm Prevention: Laws must address clear, substantial harms (not procedural lapses) [Original Query]. 3. Efficacy: Use criminalisation as a last resort after exploring alternatives. 4. Proportionality: Align punishments with offence severity (e.g., fines for administrative delays).

THE WAY FORWARD:

1. Legislative Rationalization through Proportionality Doctrine

Constitutional Anchor:

• • • Article 14 & 21: Mandate equality and proportionality in sentencing.

Implementation:

• • • Vidhi Centre’s Four Principles: Adopt harm-based criminalization (e.g., decriminalize petty offences like storing e-cigarettes under Jan Vishwas 2.0).

Data Linkage:

• • • 7,305 crimes under non-core laws (Vidhi Centre); 75% undertrials (NCRB, 2025).

 

2. Federal-State Collaborative Reforms (Jan Vishwas 3.0)

Constitutional Mandate:

• • • Article 40: Strengthen Gram Nyayalayas for rural dispute resolution.
    • 114th Law Commission Report: Revive community-driven justice models.

Case Study:

• • • Maharashtra’s Legal Reforms: Repealed 124 obsolete laws (Vidhi Maharashtra, 2025), focusing on healthcare and education.

Implementation:

• • • State-Specific Task Forces: Modeled after PIB’s working group (2023) to review 5,333 jail clauses in state laws (ORF, 2024).

 

3. Restorative Justice Integration

Legal Framework:

• • • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Sec 4: Community service for petty crimes (e.g., attempted suicide, minor theft).
    • UNODC Model: Norway’s Halden Prison (60% recidivism rate vs. India’s 85%).

Case Study:

• • • Kerala’s Pilot (2024): 1,200 offenders cleared 45 tons of waste via community service.

 

4. Statutory Public Consultation Framework

Constitutional Basis:

• • • RTI Act, 2005: Institutionalize pre-legislative scrutiny (PRS India, 2024).

Case Study:

• • • Flawed Jan Vishwas 2023: Pharmaceutical lobby diluted penalties for sub-standard drugs.

Implementation:

• • • Citizen Lawmaking Platforms: Modeled on MyGov’s “Discuss” feature for drafting bills (e.g., IT Act amendments).

 

5. Justice Reinvestment Strategy

Concept: Redirect ₹12,000 cr/year prison funds to:

• • • Forensic Labs: Address 85% backlog in rape cases (NCRB, 2025).
    • Rural Legal Aid: Strengthen Article 50 (judicial independence).

Committee Backing:

• • • Justice Srikrishna (2018): “Justice rushed risks collapse; reinvestment ensures sustainable reform.”

Case Study:

• • • Andhra’s e-Courts (2023): Reduced pendency by 22% via digitization.

THE CONCLUSION:

By harmonizing Jan Vishwas 2.0/3.0 with constitutional principles (Articles 14, 21) and global restorative models, India can transition from a punitive sarkaar to a samaaj-inclusive justice system, freeing 75% undertrials (3.5 crore cases) and unlocking ₹12,000 cr/year for Viksit Bharat’s social infrastructure. This madhyam marg—balancing trust with accountability—will redefine governance as justice-delivery, not power-preservation.

UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTION:

Q. The soul of the new law, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) is Justice, Equality and Impartiality based on Indian culture and ethos. Discuss this in the light of major shift from a doctrine of punishment to justice in the present judicial system. 2024

MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:

Q. India’s over-reliance on criminalisation in governance reflects a colonial legacy of control rather than justice. Discuss the need for decriminalising petty offences in light of the Jan Vishwas Bill 2.0 and its proposed principles

SOURCE:

https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/russia-full-ceasefire-ukraine-9896868/

Spread the Word