In our views that BHARTIYA NYAYA SANHITA having positive and negative impact on society. There was a good interpretation of the sections and also there was some contradiction between statutes and judicial interpretation.
example: – 1) before the enactment of BNS (section 69) there was no explicate provision regarding about fake promise to marry and have sexual intercourse with woman but said provision makes it offence punishable with 10 years of imprisonment. this was the positive impact but there is a chance of misusing of this section.
2) Two years jail sentence and a fine are the penalties for printing or publishing “any matter” about court proceedings in rape and sexual assault without court permission according to the recently added section 73. the explanation for this clause makes it clear that reporting on rulings from the high court or the supreme court would not be considered an offence under this clause.
After 163 years, Indian Penal code, 1860 has been repealed by Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. IPC was majorly focused on punishment, but BNS moreover, focus on Nyaya (Justice). BNS introduced and elaborated upon offences mentioned in IPC or offence which were not covered in IPC such as crime against human body, property matters, against public health, safety, decency, morality and religion, against state and defamation was further elaborated. New provisions for transgender, which focus on euality among all the genders by acknowledging them as humans.
In 2017, case of Joseph Shine vs. union of India, Joseph Shine an Indian citizen living in Italy, challenged the constitutional validity of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 198(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The Supreme Court ruled that these sections violated Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution and infringed on women’s autonomy, dignity, and privacy. The court reaffirmed sexual privacy as a natural right under the Constitution and ruled that Section 497 subverted true equality by applying penal sanctions to a gender-based approach to marriage. Adultery remained a civil wrong and a valid ground for divorce, but it was no longer criminalized.
In Navtej singh johar vs union of India, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code criminalizes consensual sexual intercourse between same-sex persons. In 2009, the Naz Foundation challenged its constitutionality, arguing it violates Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court reversed this decision in 2013 and ruled that only Parliament could decriminalize homosexuality. Five LGBTQ individuals filed a new writ petition challenging Section 377’s constitutionality, considering its impact on Articles 14 and 21.
Kedarnath Singh vs. state of Bihar, Kedarnath Singh a member of the Forward Communist Party of Bihar, was accused of using incorrect terms for the Indian National Congress party. The case involved a complaint against him for using terms that vilified the government and incited revolution. The Patna High Court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal, stating that the speech was seditious and not a criticism of the government’s policies. The Supreme Court’s division bench referred the case to the constitutional bench, where it was questioned about the constitutional validity of sections 124A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court ruled that every citizen has a right to say or write about the government, as long as it does not incite people to violence or create public disorder. The judgment upheld the constitutionality of sedition but limited its application to acts involving intention or tendency to create disorder or incitement to violence.
