[ad_1]
The new interpretation of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), specifically Section 175(3), which replaces
Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), introduces significant
procedural changes that will affect its practical application. These changes
aim to enhance judicial scrutiny, reduce misuse, and increase accountability in
the process of ordering investigations. Below is an explanation of how these
changes will impact the working of Section 156 in practice:
Key Changes and Their Practical
Implications
1. Mandatory
Application to Superintendent of Police (SP):
o Under BNSS, complainants must first
apply to the SP under Section 173(4) before approaching a Magistrate under
Section 175(3). This application must be supported by an affidavit.
o Impact: This requirement ensures that
complaints are first addressed administratively by higher police authorities,
reducing the burden on Magistrates and discouraging frivolous or malicious
complaints. It also holds complainants accountable for false allegations, as
filing a false affidavit can lead to legal consequences.
2. Magistrate’s
Inquiry Before Ordering Investigation:
o The Magistrate is now required to
conduct an inquiry as deemed necessary before directing an investigation. This
step was discretionary under the CrPC but is now codified in BNSS.
o Impact: This procedural safeguard ensures
that Magistrates exercise judicial discretion and verify the merit of
complaints before ordering investigations. It reduces instances of arbitrary or
baseless FIRs being registered.
3. Consideration
of Police Submissions:
o Magistrates must consider submissions
made by the concerned police officer explaining why an FIR was not registered
before issuing any directions for investigation..
o Impact: This measure increases police
accountability and provides an opportunity for officers to justify their
actions, ensuring that investigations are ordered only when genuinely
warranted.
4. Safeguards
for Public Servants:
o Section 175(4) introduces additional
protections for public servants accused of offenses committed during official
duties. Magistrates can order investigations only after receiving a report from
a superior officer and considering the accused’s assertions.
o Impact: This provision prevents harassment of
public officials through frivolous complaints while maintaining avenues for
legitimate grievances to be addressed.
5. Enhanced
Accountability and Judicial Oversight:
o By codifying judicial practices such as
requiring affidavits and inquiries, BNSS ensures that Magistrates apply their
minds judiciously and pass reasoned orders.
o Impact: This strengthens judicial oversight,
reduces misuse of legal provisions, and promotes fairness in criminal
proceedings.
Challenges and Criticisms
·
Increased Procedural Burden: The additional steps required under
BNSS, such as affidavits and inquiries, may delay the registration of FIRs in
urgent cases.
·
Potential Overburdening of Magistrates: The requirement for inquiries could
increase the workload on Magistrates, potentially leading to delays in justice
delivery.
·
Reduced Judicial Independence: Some critics argue that requiring
Magistrates to consider police submissions before ordering investigations
undermines their independence and gives undue weight to police discretion.
Conclusion
The new interpretation of BNSS aims to
strike a balance between preventing misuse of investigative powers and ensuring
access to justice. While these changes promote accountability and reduce
frivolous litigation, they also introduce procedural complexities that could
slow down the process in some cases. In practice, these reforms are expected to
enhance the integrity of criminal investigations but may require adjustments in
judicial and administrative workflows to avoid delays.
[ad_2]
Source link