The legal framework of any nation is a testament to its historical evolution, societal values, and future aspirations. Since its adoption in 1860, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has served as the cornerstone of the country’s criminal justice system. The Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), a new legal code meant to reform and replace the IPC, was introduced as a result of previous events. This article contrasts the key legal distinctions between the IPC and the BNS and discusses the ramifications of these modifications.

Historical Context and Purpose

Indian Penal Code (IPC):

The IPC was drafted in 1860 by the First Law Commission under the chairmanship of Thomas Babington Macaulay. It was designed to be a comprehensive code covering all substantive aspects of criminal law. The IPC was a product of British colonial governance, reflecting the legal philosophies and administrative needs of the time. Despite its colonial origins, the IPC has been instrumental in maintaining law and order in post-independence India, undergoing numerous amendments to address evolving societal norms and legal requirements.

Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS):

The BNS represents a significant legislative effort to overhaul the criminal justice system in India. Initiated in response to calls for a more contemporary legal framework, the BNS aims to address the limitations and outdated provisions of the IPC. The BNS seeks to align the legal code with modern democratic values, technological advancements, and changing societal dynamics. It is a forward-looking document intended to make the legal system more efficient, just, and reflective of contemporary Indian society.

Structural Differences

IPC: The IPC is divided into 23 chapters with 511 sections, each of which lists particular offenses and punishments that go along with them. The code is categorized broadly into offenses against the state, public tranquility, human body, property, and reputation, among others. The language of the IPC, being archaic, sometimes poses challenges in interpretation and application.


The BNS, while retaining a similar categorical structure, has been streamlined to reduce ambiguities and redundancies. It incorporates modern legal terminologies and concepts, making it more accessible and comprehensible. The BNS also integrates provisions related to cybercrimes, terrorism, and other contemporary issues that were not adequately covered under the IPC.

Key Legal Differences

1. Definition and Classification of Offenses:


   – Offenses in the IPC are broadly classified into cognizable and non-cognizable, bailable and non-bailable, and compoundable and non-compoundable.

   – Some definitions, such as those related to theft, robbery, and fraud, are considered outdated due to changes in societal behavior and technological advancements.


   – The BNS provides more precise definitions and classifications of offenses. For instance, cybercrimes and digital fraud are specifically defined and categorized.

   – The classification system has been revised to reflect the severity and contemporary nature of offenses better.

2. Punishment and Sentencing:


   – The IPC prescribes specific punishments for offenses, often with a fixed range (e.g., imprisonment for a term extending to a certain number of years).

   – The focus has traditionally been on retributive justice, with less emphasis on rehabilitation.


   – The BNS introduces more flexible sentencing guidelines, allowing judges greater discretion based on the circumstances of each case.

   – It emphasizes restorative justice and rehabilitation, incorporating community service, probation, and other alternative sentencing methods.

3. Gender Sensitivity and Equality:


   – Some provisions of the IPC have been criticized for gender insensitivity. For example, the adultery law (Section 497) was considered discriminatory until it was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2018.

   – Offenses like marital rape are not explicitly recognized.


   – The BNS aims to address these gender biases by incorporating more gender-neutral language and provisions.

   – Marital rape and other gender-based offenses are explicitly recognized and penalized, reflecting a commitment to gender equality.

4. Protection of Rights and Liberties:


   – The IPC includes provisions for the protection of individual rights, but these are often seen as inadequate in contemporary contexts.

   – Issues like custodial torture and police excesses have been inadequately addressed.


   – The BNS places a stronger emphasis on protecting individual rights and liberties. Provisions against custodial torture, unlawful detention, and police excesses have been strengthened.

   – It aligns more closely with international human rights standards, ensuring better protection of civil liberties.

5. Technological and Cybercrimes:


   – The IPC, being a product of the 19th century, does not adequately address technological and cybercrimes. Amendments have been made, but they often fall short of comprehensive coverage.


   – The BNS incorporates a detailed framework for addressing cybercrimes, including hacking, identity theft, and digital fraud.

   – It recognizes the evolving nature of technology and its implications for criminal activity, providing a robust legal mechanism to tackle these issues.

Implementation and Practical Implications

The introduction of the BNS represents a significant shift in the Indian legal landscape. Its successful implementation will depend on various factors, including judicial interpretation, enforcement mechanisms, and public awareness. Here are some practical implications:

1. Judicial Training and Interpretation:

   – Judges and legal practitioners will require training to familiarize themselves with the new provisions and terminologies of the BNS.

   – Judicial interpretation will play a crucial role in shaping the application of the BNS, especially in areas where significant changes have been introduced.

2. Law Enforcement Adaptation:

   – Law enforcement agencies will need to adapt to the new legal framework, requiring updates in training, procedures, and resources.

   – Effective implementation of provisions related to cybercrimes and technology will necessitate specialized skills and infrastructure.

3. Public Awareness and Education:

   – Public awareness campaigns will be essential to educate citizens about their rights and responsibilities under the BNS.

   – Legal literacy programs can help bridge the gap between the legal code and its practical understanding among the general populace.

4. Transitional Challenges:

   – The transition from the IPC to the BNS may face challenges, including legal disputes and resistance to change from various stakeholders.

   – Ensuring a smooth transition will require coordinated efforts from the government, judiciary, and civil society.

To Conclude With

The Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita is a pivotal milestone in the development of the Indian legal system. Through the revision of the Indian Penal Code and the addition of comprehensive, modern legislation, the BNS seeks to establish a more equitable, effective, and up-to-date legal system. Even if there may be difficulties with the shift, there could be significant advantages in terms of better access to justice and more rights protection. It would be essential to make sure that the new code preserves the core values of justice and equality as well as the goals of a modern society as India moves forward with the implementation of the BNS.

By: Aakash Jaggia (Intern)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This field is required.

This field is required.


The following disclaimer governs the use of this website (“Website”) and the services provided by the Law offices of Kr. Vivek Tanwar Advocate & Associates in accordance with the laws of India. By accessing or using this Website, you acknowledge and agree to the terms and conditions stated in this disclaimer.

The information provided on this Website is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice or relied upon as such. The content of this Website is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Firm. Any reliance on the information provided on this Website is done at your own risk.

The Law Firm makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information contained on this Website.

The Law Firm disclaims all liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this Website or for any actions taken in reliance on the information provided herein. The information contained in this website, should not be construed as an act of solicitation of work or advertisement in any manner.