On 12th December (Tuesday), the Union government revamped the legal definition of “a terrorist act”. Any action threatening India’s economic security will be treated as a ‘terrorist act’ under the new criminal code. The definition now includes threats to the economic and monetary security of the country through actions like using counterfeit currency or kidnapping, injuring, or causing the death of a public functionary, as reported by NDTV.
#NewCriminalCode pic.twitter.com/g30k36MjeI
— NDTV (@ndtv) December 12, 2023
According to Section 113 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, those who threaten, or are likely to threaten, the country by causing “damage to the monetary stability of India, by way of production or smuggling or circulation of counterfeit Indian paper currency…” commit a terrorist act.
Notably, on 11th December, Union Home Minister Amit Shah had notified Lok Sabha that the three criminal law bills would be withdrawn. He added that the bills would be replaced with three new bills to incorporate the recommendations proposed by a parliamentary committee. Pertinent to note that the revised versions of all three were tabled in the Lok Sabha this evening (12th December).
A Statement from the office of the Home Minister had said, “The bill (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) was referred to Department related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs on August 18 for consideration. The Committee held several rounds of discussion with the officials of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice, domain experts, and various stakeholders and submitted its reports along with recommendations on November 10.”
Apart from revamping the definition of terrorist act, the government has added two new sections to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. It is one of three bills that is now slated to replace current criminal laws, including the Code of Criminal Procedure.
As per media reports, the first addition is the inclusion of Section 86. This newly added section includes harming a woman’s mental health in its definition of “cruelty”.
Section 85 provided a three-year jail term for a husband, or members of his family, found guilty of subjecting his wife to cruel treatment in the previous version of the bill. However, the previous version didn’t define “cruel treatment” which has now been included, and the definition, significantly, extends to harming the woman’s mental health as well as her physical well-being.
The second section prescribes a two-year imprisonment for disclosing the identity of a sexual assault victim from court proceedings without their consent.
