Are Judicial Reforms Beneficial or Confusing for India’s common people?
The recent changes in the Indian judicial system, such as the unveiling of a new Lady of Justice statue in the Supreme Court and the introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) to replace the Indian Penal Code (IPC), have stirred both admiration and confusion. While these reforms aim to modernise and Indianise the judiciary, they have raised questions about whether they simplify the system or make it more complex for the common people to understand. The judicial system in India has evolved significantly, but its history is rooted in colonial structures that still impact how people perceive the law.
India’s legal system can be split into two phases: the colonial period and the post-independence era. During British rule, laws like the IPC, enacted in 1860, were designed to maintain control over India rather than promote the welfare of its citizens. These laws focused on protecting British interests with little regard for justice for Indians, and they played a part in the growing discontent that fuelled the independence movement. After India gained freedom in 1947, the task of draughting new laws for the country fell to leaders like B.R. Ambedkar, who chaired the committee that draughted the Indian Constitution, aiming to create a system of justice rooted in equality, democracy, and fairness.
In August 2023, the Indian government introduced the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) to replace the IPC after 164 years. The BNS is designed to modernise the country’s criminal laws, removing outdated colonial offences and addressing contemporary challenges like cybercrime, sexual offences, and drug-related crimes. One significant change is the introduction of gender-neutral language, a move aimed at ensuring equality in the application of the law. These changes are seen as necessary for a more just society, but they have also caused confusion among the general public, who often lack detailed knowledge of the legal system.
The renaming of laws—such as the Indian Evidence Act becoming the Bharatiya Sakshya and the Criminal Procedure Code turning into the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita—added to this confusion. Another contentious point was the use of Hindi in these new terms, even though Article 348(1) of the Indian Constitution mandates the use of English in court proceedings and legal documents. India, a country with no single official language, saw debates arise over whether Hindi should dominate in such matters. This language shift alienated non-Hindi speakers, adding to the political and social debates surrounding the reforms.
Along with legal changes, the Supreme Court of India recently unveiled a new Lady of Justice statue, which reflects a more Indianized version of the classic Roman figure. The older statue featured a blindfolded woman holding scales and a sword, symbolising impartiality, balance, and enforcement of the law. This image, rooted in Roman and Greek mythology, had been introduced to India during the British colonial period and continued after independence as a symbol of justice. The new statue, however, removed the blindfold, suggesting that “law is no longer blind,” according to the Supreme Court. The sword was replaced with a book of the Constitution, shifting the focus from enforcement to fairness, while the scales remained unchanged.
The statue’s new look, featuring a traditional saree and jewellery, has sparked debate, with some arguing that it now resembles a Hindu goddess, raising concerns about the use of religious imagery in a secular legal system.
These changes in the judicial system have generated mixed reactions. Many view them as necessary steps toward modernising and Indianising India’s legal framework, while others see them as sources of confusion, especially for the general public. The shift in the language of the laws and the symbolic changes in the Lady of Justice have created a disconnect for many people, particularly those unfamiliar with legal jargon or who are non-Hindi speakers. This has led to debates about whether these reforms truly benefit the people or if they make the judicial system more inaccessible.
However, the changes have also caused confusion, particularly due to the shift in language and symbolism. For the common people, unfamiliar with legal terms and the history behind these reforms, the changes can seem daunting. The success of these reforms will depend on how effectively they are communicated and whether they truly serve to make justice more accessible, fair, and equal for all Indians.
