Beyond Human Bias: An LLM-Driven Comparative Analysis of the Indian Penal Code (1860) and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (2023)

Abstract

This paper attempts to present an objective comparative analysis of India’s criminal law frameworks, transitioning from the Indian Penal Code (1860) to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (2023). Recognizing the potential for bias in human analysis, particularly in the context of significant legal reforms, this study leverages Large Language Models (LLM) to ensure an impartial assessment. By utilizing the LLMs’ vast knowledge base and capacity for pattern recognition, this research tries to identify and analyze key differences between the two codes, focusing on areas such as punishment, definitions of crimes, and procedural changes. The study’s findings shed light on the evolution of India’s criminal justice system and contribute to our understanding of the broader legal and social implications of this reform.

Introduction

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860, a relic of the British Raj, has long served as the bedrock of India’s criminal justice system. However, its colonial origins and antiquated provisions have increasingly been seen as misaligned with the evolving needs and values of modern India. For example, the IPC lacked specific provisions to address the unique challenges posed by cybercrime, leaving a legal vacuum in areas such as online harassment, data breaches, and identity theft. In response, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 was enacted, aiming to overhaul and modernize the country’s criminal law framework.

India is not alone in recognizing the need for such comprehensive legal reforms. Several other countries have embarked on similar journeys to update their criminal codes to reflect contemporary challenges and societal values. For instance, South Africa introduced significant changes to its criminal law after the end of apartheid, aiming to address historical injustices and promote reconciliation.¹ Similarly, Rwanda undertook substantial legal reforms after the 1994 genocide, focusing on transitional justice and rebuilding the legal system.² These examples demonstrate a global trend toward recognizing the need for legal systems to evolve and adapt to changing circumstances.

Regulatory changes, while often essential for progress, necessitate a thorough and unbiased evaluation to fully comprehend their potential benefits and drawbacks.³ This evaluation should ideally involve open dialogue and discourse among diverse stakeholders, allowing for a comprehensive examination of the change’s multifaceted impacts.⁴ By considering varying perspectives and expertise, policymakers can make informed decisions that best serve the public interest.⁵ However, the inherent biases of individuals often hinder the realization of such unbiased discussions.⁶ Personal beliefs, political ideologies, and vested interests can cloud judgment and lead to skewed interpretations of data and evidence, resulting in polarized debates where opposing sides cling to their preconceived notions, making compromise and consensus difficult to achieve.⁷

The implementation of new criminal laws in India sparked a contentious debate. Opponents argued that these laws, enacted hastily and without sufficient deliberation, grant excessive power to law enforcement, potentially undermining democratic principles and disproportionately affecting marginalized groups.⁸ Conversely, proponents, including the ruling party, argued that these laws represent a necessary modernization of the legal system, emphasizing restorative justice, protecting victims, and addressing contemporary criminal activities more effectively.⁹

In this context, objective analysis is crucial for understanding the true impact and implications. Such analysis, free from political biases and ideological leanings, can provide valuable insights into the effectiveness, potential challenges, and areas for improvement in the new law. Objectivity in legal scholarship enhances the quality of analysis and facilitates evidence-based policymaking.¹⁰ It also counteracts cognitive biases like confirmation bias,¹¹ which can distort interpretations of new laws.

Further, by transcending political biases¹² and promoting empirical accuracy,¹³ it also provides deeper insights into legal evolution, especially in comparative legal studies. Furthermore, it enables the integration of interdisciplinary perspectives¹⁴ and facilitates the assessment of the long-term implications of legal reforms.¹⁵ This approach not only contributes to a better understanding of the evolving legal landscape but also supports informed policymaking. In the case of BNS 2023 and IPC 1860, such analysis can illuminate the effectiveness of the new law, identify potential challenges, and suggest areas for improvement, ultimately serving the public interest better.

This paper performs a comparative analysis of the BNS 2023 and the IPC 1860, examining the key differences in definitions, offenses, and punishments. By scrutinizing these changes, the paper aims to assess the BNS’s potential to address contemporary challenges, enhance protections for vulnerable groups, and promote a more just and equitable legal system in India. Additionally, the paper critically evaluates the BNS, identifying areas for improvement and potential biases that may require further attention and reform.

Comparative legal analysis, as emphasized by,¹⁶ necessitates a detailed understanding that probes beyond surface-level distinctions. Drawing on Dworkin’s approach,¹⁷ this analysis examines not only the immediate effects of legal reforms but also their broader legal and societal implications. To address these and to mitigate possible biases inherent in human analysis, this study employs Large Language Models (LLM) for comparative analysis. LLMs, with their vast training data and capacity for pattern recognition, offer a relatively objective lens through which to examine the intricacies of legal frameworks. By leveraging on LLM, this research aims to minimize the influence of personal or political leanings, thereby fostering a more impartial and data-driven assessment of the IPC and BNS.

AI models, while capable of processing vast amounts of information and generating responses based on learned patterns, are not immune to biases.¹⁸ The data used to train these models often contains inherent biases present in society, which can inadvertently be reflected in their outputs.¹⁹ In addition, the algorithms used to process and generate responses can also introduce biases due to their design and assumptions.²⁰

However, AI can be less susceptible to certain emotional and cognitive biases that affect humans, such as confirmation bias and the availability heuristic.²¹ AI can access and analyze vast amounts of data without the limitations of human memory or attention, thereby providing a more comprehensive and balanced perspective.²² Furthermore, efforts are underway to develop AI models that are more aware of their biases and can adjust their responses accordingly.²³ While achieving complete unbiasedness may be a challenge, AI has the potential to offer a less biased perspective than humans in certain situations.²⁴

In this paper, we present a novel approach to comparative legal analysis by leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) to conduct a comprehensive comparison between the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Other studies have examined BNS to determine if it is different from IPC in spirit.²⁵ Few studies have examined the effect of BNS on specific professions such as psychiatrists²⁶ and doctors.²⁷ Our methodology represents a significant departure from traditional comparative legal research methods, offering a more systematic and less biased approach to identifying similarities and differences between these two legal frameworks. By using the capabilities of LLMs to process and analyze vast amounts of legal text, we have been able to uncover insights that might have been overlooked by human researchers alone. Our study not only demonstrates the potential of AI-assisted legal research but also paves the way for future applications of LLMs in the field of law. We believe that this approach will inspire legal scholars to incorporate LLMs as a complementary tool in their research arsenal, supplementing human expertise and judgment with AI-driven analysis. As LLMs continue to evolve, we anticipate that their integration into legal academic research will enhance the depth, breadth, and efficiency of comparative legal studies.

We structure the rest of the paper as follows. Section 2 provides a brief discussion of the relevant literature. In section 3, we discuss the methodology we used while comparing the IPC with BNS. Section 4 discusses the key results of the paper. In section 5, we discuss the benefits of conducting such research using LLMs as assistants. Finally, section 6 concludes the paper.

Review of Relevant Literature

The Indian criminal justice system underwent a significant transformation in 2024 with the replacement of the IPC, established in 1860, by the BNS. This comprehensive overhaul aimed to modernize and streamline the country’s criminal law framework, aligning it with contemporary societal needs and values. The BNS introduces substantial changes to the definitions of crimes, sentencing guidelines, and procedural aspects of criminal law. Understanding the implications of this transition necessitates a thorough and objective analysis of both codes.

Understanding the intricacies of both codes, however, requires situating them within the broader theoretical frameworks of criminal law. The objectives of criminal law are multifaceted, encompassing incapacitation, retribution, rehabilitation, and deterrence²⁸ while striving to maintain societal order by safeguarding individual rights, public interests, and overall peace.²⁹ It is like a system of principles that aims to make decisions based on specific goals, especially when classifying crimes.³⁰ Guided by principles of legality and proportionality to prevent unjustified criminalization and penalties,³¹ criminal law seeks to harmonize various aspects to achieve comprehensive justice, integrating traditional values with modern concepts.³² The methodology for legal regulation within criminal law emphasizes victim protection, justice, and morality³³ while recognizing that practical issues, such as the lack of forensic autopsies, can hinder the pursuit of material truth in certain cases.³⁴ Ultimately, criminal law aims to ensure fair and just treatment within the legal system, balancing societal protection with individual rights.

The complex nature and multifaceted objectives of criminal law require objectivity in its analysis and application.³⁵ However, achieving an unbiased interpretation remains challenging, even within the structured framework of legal principles and methodologies.³⁶ Legal scholars, practitioners, and policymakers, despite their commitment to upholding justice and fairness, may unconsciously introduce personal biases shaped by their individual experiences, beliefs, or affiliations.³⁷ These biases can manifest subtly, thereby influencing the interpretation of legal provisions, the evaluation of evidence, and ultimately, the application of criminal law principles.³⁸ Such unintended biases could affect various aspects of the criminal justice system, from the classification of crimes and determination of proportional penalties to the balancing of societal protection with individual rights.³⁹

Citizens’ reactions to regulatory changes are often influenced by various cognitive biases, leading to distorted perceptions and polarized responses. Key biases include confirmation bias, where individuals seek information aligning with their existing beliefs;⁴⁰ the availability heuristic, which affects perception based on readily available information;⁴¹ and in-group bias, favoring one’s own group over others.⁴² These biases are further amplified by groupthink (Janis, 1982) and social media echo chambers,⁴³ which reinforce existing beliefs and hinder objective evaluation. Emotional biases also play a significant role, as strong emotions can cloud judgment and lead to irrational responses.⁴⁴In political contexts, these biases often manifest as party loyalty overriding objective assessment of regulatory changes.⁴⁵ Understanding these biases is important for policymakers and analysts seeking to interpret public reactions and implement effective changes, as they create challenges in addressing citizens’ responses to new regulations.

For policymakers and analysts, recognizing these biases is essential for several reasons. It aids in predicting public responses, guides effective communication strategies, emphasizes the need for clear information, and highlights the importance of diverse perspectives in policymaking to mitigate group-based biases.⁴⁶ By understanding and accounting for these cognitive biases, it becomes possible to design and implement regulatory changes more effectively, with strategies in place to address potential misunderstandings and promote a more objective public discourse.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful tools across various sectors, including law and policy analysis. LLMs, a subset of AI, are advanced machine learning models trained on vast amounts of text data, enabling them to understand, generate, and analyze human-like text.⁴⁷ In the legal domain, AI and LLMs are being increasingly utilized for tasks such as legal research, contract analysis, due diligence, and even predicting court decisions.⁴⁸ For instance, platforms like ROSS Intelligence use AI to enhance legal research capabilities, while tools like Kira Systems employ machine learning for contract analysis and due diligence.⁴⁹

Given their capabilities, LLMs offer a promising avenue for obtaining relatively objective views on new laws and regulations, potentially mitigating some of the cognitive biases that affect human analysis. Unlike human experts, LLMs do not possess personal experiences, emotional attachments, or vested interests that could skew their interpretation of legal texts. This absence of human-specific cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias or in-group favoritism, allows LLMs to analyze laws based solely on the information they’ve been trained on, potentially providing a more impartial perspective.⁵⁰ Moreover, LLMs can process and synthesize vast amounts of legal information quickly, thereby offering a more comprehensive analysis than individual human experts.⁵¹ This capability is particularly valuable in the rapidly evolving landscape of law and regulation, where keeping up with changes and their implications can be challenging for human experts alone.

However, it’s important to acknowledge that while LLMs may not have cognitive biases in the same way humans do, they are not entirely free from biases. The data used to train these models can contain societal biases present in the texts they learn from, which can lead to skewed outputs.⁵² In addition, the design choices made by the developers in creating and fine-tuning these models can introduce biases.⁵³ These limitations have been observed in various AI applications in law, such as risk assessment tools in criminal justice systems, which have been criticized for perpetuating racial biases.⁵⁴

Despite these limitations, LLMs can still serve as valuable tools in legal analysis when used in conjunction with human expertise. They can offer initial, broad analyses that humans can then scrutinize, challenge, and refine, potentially leading to more thorough and balanced interpretations of new laws.⁵⁵ Furthermore, ongoing research into improving the transparency and explainability of LLM decision-making processes⁵⁶ could enhance their reliability in legal contexts. Some researchers are exploring techniques like SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) to provide interpretable explanations for AI model outputs in legal applications.⁵⁷

Given the inherent challenges of achieving complete objectivity in human-led analyses, this study employs a Large Language Model (LLM) as a tool for conducting a comparative analysis of the IPC and the BNS. By leveraging the LLM’s computational capabilities and minimizing human bias, this research aims to provide a more impartial assessment of the changes introduced by the BNS and their potential impact on the Indian legal landscape.

Methodology

The application of LLMs in legal analysis, particularly in the context of examining the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), represents a novel approach to understanding and evaluating legal reforms. The methodology for using LLMs in legal analysis of the BNS involves several key steps. First, the LLM is provided with comprehensive information about both the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the BNS, including the full text of both laws, explanatory notes, and relevant contextual information about the Indian legal system. This ensures that the model has a robust foundation of knowledge to draw upon. Next, specific queries and prompts are designed to elicit analysis of various aspects of the BNS, such as its structure, new provisions, changes in sentencing, and alignment with legal theories. These prompts are carefully crafted to encourage detailed, nuanced responses that go beyond simple fact-retrieval and into the realm of analysis and interpretation.

One of the key advantages of this methodology is LLM’s ability to quickly process and synthesize vast amounts of information, drawing connections and identifying patterns that might not be immediately apparent to human analysts. For instance, when analyzing the BNS’s approach to new types of crimes, the LLM can rapidly compare these provisions with similar laws in other jurisdictions, historical precedents, and relevant academic literature, providing a comprehensive overview in a fraction of the time it would take a human researcher.

Techniques like zero-shot learning, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and fine-tuning can be used by researchers to enhance the efficiency of legal comparisons. Zero-shot learning allows LLMs to perform tasks without specific training examples, making it valuable for analyzing novel legal texts.⁵⁸ Researchers could prompt an LLM to identify key differences between IPC and BNS, even if the model wasn’t explicitly trained on Indian legal texts. This approach can quickly highlight areas of divergence for further human analysis. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) combines the broad knowledge of LLMs with the ability to access and incorporate specific external information.⁵⁹ For legal research, RAG could be used to augment the LLM’s analysis with precise references to relevant case law, academic commentaries, or legislative history. This ensures that the comparison is grounded in authoritative sources while benefiting from the LLM’s analytical capabilities. Fine-tuning LLMs on domain-specific legal corpora can further enhance their performance on comparative legal tasks.⁶⁰ By training on a dataset of Indian legal texts, researchers could develop models with a nuanced understanding of Indian legal terminology, principles, and precedents. These fine-tuned models could then provide more accurate and context-aware comparisons between existing and new laws.

The present study employs a multi-stage approach leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) to conduct a comparative analysis of the IPC and the BNS. The methodology comprises three primary phases: data acquisition, text processing, and similarity-based retrieval and analysis. The initial phase involves the procurement of primary legal texts. The full text of both the Indian Penal Code and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are obtained from official Government of India websites,⁶¹ ensuring the authenticity and currency of the source material. This approach aligns with the best practices in legal research, emphasizing the use of authoritative sources.

Upon acquisition, the legal texts are input into the LLM system. The model employs a text segmentation algorithm to partition the extensive legal documents into manageable chunks. This chunking process facilitates more granular analysis and comparison, a technique that has shown efficacy in processing lengthy legal documents.⁶² Subsequently, the LLM generates vector embeddings for each textual segment using its internal representation mechanism. These embeddings serve as dense numerical representations of the semantic content of each text chunk, a method that has demonstrated significant improvements in legal text analysis.⁶³

This study employs an ensemble of state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs) to conduct comparative legal analysis. The selected models include GPT-4o,⁶⁴ Claude 3.5 Sonnet,⁶⁵ Gemini 2.0 Pro,⁶⁶ and Command R+ from Cohere.⁶⁷ These models represent the cutting edge in natural language processing, each possessing unique strengths and capabilities in language understanding and generation.

The rationale for utilizing multiple models stems from the observation that individual LLMs, despite their sophistication, may exhibit varying performance across different tasks or query types. This phenomenon aligns with the “No Free Lunch” theorem in machine learning, which posits that no single model can outperform all others across all possible tasks.⁶⁸

To leverage the complementary strengths of these models and mitigate individual weaknesses, we adopt an ensemble approach inspired by the “Wisdom of the Crowd” principle.⁶⁹ This methodology involves querying all four models independently and then employing a consensus mechanism to synthesize a final response. The consensus approach helps to reduce model-specific biases and increase the robustness and reliability of the analysis.⁷⁰ This multi-model ensemble method is particularly well-suited to the complex domain of legal analysis, where thorough interpretation and comprehensive understanding are crucial. By aggregating insights from multiple advanced LLMs, we aim to produce more balanced, accurate, and reliable comparative analyses of legal texts.

The final phase of the methodology involves the processing of our queries. Each query undergoes a similar embedding process, transforming the natural language input into a vector representation compatible with the document embeddings. The system then computes the cosine similarity between the query embedding and the embeddings of the text chunks from both legal documents. This similarity metric identifies the most relevant sections of each law in relation to the query, a technique that has shown promise in legal information retrieval tasks.⁷¹

The LLM subsequently synthesizes a response based on the retrieved text chunks, integrating information from both the IPC and BNS to provide a comparative analysis. This approach allows for dynamic, query-specific comparisons between the two legal frameworks, facilitating a detailed examination of their similarities and differences. The use of LLMs for such comparative tasks builds upon recent advancements in applying machine learning to legal analysis. This methodology leverages the semantic understanding capabilities of LLMs while grounding the analysis in the specific content of the legal texts, enabling a systematic and reproducible approach to comparative legal analysis.

To conduct a comprehensive comparative analysis of the IPC and the BNS, we developed a structured questioning strategy for the LLMs. This strategy was designed to elicit detailed responses that would facilitate a thorough comparison of the two legal frameworks. The questioning process was conducted in two main phases:

Phase 1: Macro-Level Comparison

In the initial phase, we prompted the LLMs to perform a high-level comparison of the IPC and BNS. The primary question posed was:

• “Conduct a comprehensive comparison of the Indian Penal Code and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, identifying and elaborating on the key differences between these two legal frameworks.”

This broad inquiry was designed to capture overarching structural, philosophical, and substantive differences between the two codes, providing a foundation for more detailed analysis.

Phase 2: Section-Specific Analysis

Following the macro-level comparison, we engaged in a more granular analysis, focusing on individual sections of the laws. For each corresponding section in the IPC and BNS, we posed the following set of questions to the LLMs:

• “Identify and explain the specific differences between Section of the Indian Penal Code and its corresponding section in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.” Here, X is a placeholder for the particular section.

• “Evaluate whether the provisions in the BNS for this section represent an improvement over the IPC in terms of fairness, societal benefit, and relevance to modern society. Consider established legal principles in your analysis.”

• “Analyze the potential implications of these changes on judicial interpretation, law enforcement, and societal norms.”

• “Assess the alignment of these changes with contemporary legal thought and international best practices in criminal law.”

• “Identify any potential challenges that might arise from the implementation of these new provisions.”

This systematic questioning approach was designed to elicit a comprehensive analysis that not only identifies differences but also evaluates their potential impact and alignment with broader legal and societal considerations. By framing the questions in this manner, we aimed to leverage the LLMs’ capacity for thorough analysis while ensuring that the responses would be relevant to academic legal discourse. The responses to these questions were then processed through our ensemble method and consensus mechanism to generate a final, synthesized analysis for each section and for the overall comparison of the two legal codes.

Results

Key Differences

In this section, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of the key differences between the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Our examination focuses on four primary aspects: structural and organizational changes, the introduction of new offenses, modifications in punishments and sentences, and the modernization of language and concepts. Table 1 summarizes the key differences between IPC and BNS.

Structure and Organization

The BNS represents a substantial reconfiguration of the IPC, exhibiting significant structural and organizational modifications. While the IPC was segmented into 23 chapters encompassing 511 sections, the BNS adopts a more condensed framework, comprising 20 chapters with 358 sections. This restructuring is indicative of an endeavor to enhance the accessibility and navigability of the criminal code.

A salient alteration is evident in the reordering of offenses. Notably, the BNS prioritizes offenses against women and children, positioning them prominently in Chapter V, in contrast to their dispersed arrangement across various chapters in the IPC. This reorganization is reflective of a paradigm shift in legal priorities, underscoring the imperative of safeguarding the vulnerable.

Furthermore, the BNS exhibits a tendency towards the consolidation of related offenses. For instance, all sexual offenses are now cohesively grouped, fostering a more coherent legal structure. Similarly, property-related offenses have been logically realigned, facilitating more efficient reference and application of these statutes.

New Offenses Introduced

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) introduces several new offenses that were not explicitly addressed in the Indian Penal Code (IPC), reflecting an effort to respond to contemporary challenges and societal concerns. These additions include provisions for organized crime (Section 111), petty organized crime (Section 112), and terrorist acts (Section 113). The inclusion of these offenses within the main criminal code represents a shift from previous approaches where such activities were often addressed through separate legislation.

Furthermore, the BNS incorporates new offenses that target specific criminal behaviors that have gained prominence in recent times. For instance, Section 304 introduces the offense of snatching, addressing a form of theft that has become increasingly prevalent, particularly in urban areas. Additionally, Section 271 penalizes negligent acts likely to spread infection, a provision that has gained relevance in light of recent global health events.

These new offenses in the BNS demonstrate an attempt to modernize the criminal code by explicitly addressing criminal behaviors and public safety concerns that were not previously covered in the IPC. This expansion of offenses reflects an effort to ensure that the legal framework remains responsive to evolving societal needs and emerging forms of criminal activity.

Changes in Punishments and Sentences

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) introduces several modifications to the system of punishments and sentences previously established by the Indian Penal Code (IPC). One notable change is the enhancement of punishments for certain offenses, particularly those committed against women and children. For instance, the minimum punishment for rape has been increased. Concurrently, the BNS introduces community service as a new form of punishment under Section 4(f), potentially indicating a shift towards more rehabilitative approaches for certain offenses.

The BNS also appears to grant judges greater flexibility in sentencing for specific offenses, thereby allowing for better judicial decisions. Regarding capital punishment, while the death penalty is retained for certain heinous crimes, the BNS narrows the scope of offenses punishable by death. This change aligns with global trends towards limiting the application of capital punishment. Additionally, the BNS introduces stronger punishments for economic crimes, reflecting an increased focus on addressing white-collar offenses.

These alterations to punishments and sentences in the BNS appear to be aimed at achieving greater proportionality between crimes and their corresponding punishments. The introduction of alternative forms of punishment, such as community service, may reflect an attempt to diversify the penal system’s response to different types of offenses. However, the full impact and effectiveness of these changes will likely become apparent only through their practical application and interpretation by the courts.

Modernization of Language and Concepts

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) introduces significant modernizations to the language and concepts of the criminal code previously established by the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Table 1 shows some of the key differences. One notable change is the adoption of more gender-neutral language throughout the BNS, departing from the predominantly male-centric terminology of the IPC. This shift in language usage reflects evolving societal norms and a more inclusive approach to legal drafting.

The BNS also incorporates contemporary concepts related to digital and cyber crimes, updating definitions to encompass offenses committed through electronic means. This modification acknowledges the increasing prevalence of technology-related criminal activities. Additionally, the BNS expands and clarifies the definition of consent in sexual offenses, aligning with modern understandings of personal autonomy and consent.

Furthermore, the BNS removes or significantly modifies certain colonial-era concepts, such as sedition. Many legal terms and concepts are more precisely defined in the BNS, potentially reducing ambiguity and opportunities for misinterpretation. The new code also incorporates various judicial interpretations of the IPC that have developed over time, effectively codifying important legal principles established through case law. These changes collectively represent an effort to modernize the criminal code, making it more reflective of contemporary societal values and legal understandings.

As far as white-collar crimes are concerned, the BNS framework operates within India’s robust existing legislative architecture, which includes the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Section 447 of the Companies Act 2013, and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002. The BNS complements these acts by specifically addressing economic offenses such as counterfeiting currency and using forged currency, imposing punishments ranging from fines to life imprisonment. This targeted approach is reasonable considering the broader legal landscape governing economic and financial activities in India.

Advantages of BNS

The BNS represents a significant overhaul of India’s criminal justice system, bringing with it several advantages that address longstanding issues and modernize the legal framework. One of the primary benefits of the BNS is its focus on addressing contemporary issues and crimes that were not adequately covered by the IPC. The introduction of new offenses such as organized crime, petty organized crime, and specific provisions for terrorist acts demonstrates a recognition of the evolving nature of criminal activities in the 21st century. These additions fill crucial gaps in the legal system, providing law enforcement and judiciary with the tools to tackle complex criminal enterprises and emerging threats to public safety.

The BNS also shows a marked improvement in addressing cybercrimes and offenses committed through digital means. In an era where technology plays an increasingly central role in both everyday life and criminal activities, this update is particularly timely. By incorporating provisions that specifically target digital offenses, the BNS equips the legal system to better handle cases involving online fraud, data theft, and other tech-related crimes. This modernization is crucial for maintaining the relevance and effectiveness of the criminal code in a rapidly digitalizing society.

Another advantage of the BNS is its potential for improved clarity and interpretation of the law. The restructuring of the code, with a more logical organization of offenses and related provisions, makes it easier for legal professionals, law enforcement, and the public to navigate and understand criminal law. This improved structure could lead to more consistent application of the law and reduce ambiguities that often result in prolonged legal battles. The BNS also incorporates many judicial interpretations that have evolved over the years, effectively codifying important legal principles that were previously scattered across various court judgments. This codification not only provides clarity but also ensures that these interpretations are more readily accessible and uniformly applied.

The language used in the BNS is generally more precise and contemporary compared to the IPC. This modernization of language has the potential to reduce misinterpretations and make the law more accessible to a wider audience. Clearer definitions of legal terms and concepts can lead to more efficient legal proceedings and potentially reduce the backlog of cases in the Indian judicial system. Moreover, the use of more gender-neutral language throughout the BNS reflects a progressive step towards inclusivity in legal terminology.

The BNS demonstrates a significant alignment with current social and technological realities, which is another major advantage. The code’s approach to offenses against women and children, for instance, reflects a growing societal awareness of these issues. By bringing these offenses to the forefront and prescribing stricter punishments, the BNS acknowledges the severity of such crimes and the need for stronger deterrents. This alignment extends to the recognition of new forms of offenses that have emerged with changing social dynamics, such as specific provisions for snatching, which has become a prevalent crime in urban areas.

The introduction of community service as a form of punishment in the BNS is another example of its alignment with modern penological thoughts. This provision reflects a more rehabilitative approach to justice, recognizing that not all offenders require incarceration and that alternative forms of punishment can be more effective in certain cases. This approach aligns with global trends in criminal justice reform and has the potential to reduce the burden on the prison system while promoting offender rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

The BNS’s treatment of economic offenses also demonstrates its alignment with current realities. With the growing complexity of financial crimes and their potential to cause widespread harm, the strengthened provisions for such offenses in the BNS reflect an understanding of the changing nature of criminal activities in a globalized economy. This update is crucial for addressing white-collar crimes more effectively and protecting the economic interests of individuals and the nation.

Furthermore, the BNS’s approach to consent in sexual offenses represents a significant step forward in aligning the law with contemporary understandings of autonomy and personal rights. The expanded and clarified definition of consent reflects ongoing societal discussions about sexual ethics and personal boundaries. This update has the potential to lead to more just outcomes in cases involving sexual offenses and could contribute to changing societal attitudes towards these issues.

The removal or modification of certain colonial-era concepts, such as sedition, is another advantage of the BNS. This change aligns the criminal code more closely with the values of a modern, democratic India, moving away from provisions that were seen as vestiges of colonial rule. Such updates reflect a reevaluation of what constitutes a crime in contemporary Indian society and demonstrate an effort to balance free expression with national security concerns.

In conclusion, the BNS focus on addressing contemporary issues and crimes, the potential for improved clarity and interpretation, and alignment with current social and technological realities represent a substantial step forward in the evolution of India’s criminal justice system. While the effectiveness of these changes will ultimately depend on their implementation and interpretation by the courts, the BNS provides a more modern, comprehensive, and potentially more just framework for criminal law in India. As with any major legal reform, ongoing analysis and potential refinements may be necessary as the new code is put into practice, but the advantages it offers provide a solid foundation for a more effective and relevant criminal justice system in the 21st century.

Disadvantages of BNS

While the BNS introduces several improvements to India’s criminal code, LLMs identify certain limitations and areas of concern based on its analysis. The models point out that the primary issue lies in the potential impact of certain provisions on civil liberties and fundamental rights. They highlight that the expanded definitions of offenses related to terrorism and national security could be a cause of concern. While the removal of the sedition law is a positive step, the introduction of similar provisions under different names in the BNS presents a risk of comparable issues in practice.

There are concerns about the increased punishment for certain offenses in the BNS, particularly those related to public order and national security. Based on their comprehensive analysis of crime data and penological studies, studies assert that there’s often little correlation between severity of punishment and crime deterrence.⁷² Therefore, the BNS’s approach of harsher punishments may not effectively reduce crime rates. Instead, the LLMs propose that a more nuanced approach, balancing punitive measures with rehabilitative programs, would likely yield better outcomes for society.

Furthermore, the LLMs identify significant gaps in the BNS regarding some pressing issues in India’s criminal justice system. The LLMs point out that the code insufficiently addresses reforms in police investigation processes and the issue of custodial violence. These are critical areas that have historically been problematic in many jurisdictions, including India. A truly comprehensive overhaul of the criminal code should have incorporated more robust measures to tackle these deep-rooted issues, which the BNS fails to do adequately.

There are also concerns about the potential for misuse or overreach in the application of certain provisions of the BNS. The expanded powers given to law enforcement agencies in matters of national security and cybercrime, while necessary to some extent, have raised fears about potential violations of privacy rights. Without robust safeguards and oversight mechanisms, these powers could be misused for surveillance or harassment of citizens. The broader definitions of certain offenses could be interpreted expansively by overzealous officials, leading to the criminalization of actions that should be protected under the right to free speech and expression.

The implementation of the BNS presents another set of challenges. The Indian legal system is already overburdened, with a significant backlog of cases and a shortage of judges and other court staff. Introducing a new criminal code with substantial changes will require extensive training for judges, lawyers, and law enforcement officials. This training process is likely to be time-consuming and resource-intensive, potentially leading to initial confusion and inconsistencies in the application of the new laws.

Moreover, the successful implementation of the BNS will require significant updates to the infrastructure of the criminal justice system. This includes not only physical infrastructure like courtrooms and prisons but also technological infrastructure to handle digital evidence and cyber-related offenses. The financial and logistical challenges of such upgrades are considerable and may lead to uneven implementation across different states and regions of India. Another implementation challenge lies in ensuring that the public is adequately informed about the changes in the criminal code. Legal awareness is crucial for the effective functioning of any legal system, and a sweeping change like the introduction of the BNS necessitates a comprehensive public education campaign. Without such awareness, there is a risk that many citizens may remain unaware of their rights and responsibilities under the new code.

Furthermore, the BNS’s provisions related to digital offenses, while necessary in the modern age, have raised concerns about potential overreach in online spaces. Some of these provisions are too broad and could be used to curb online dissent or criticize the government. The challenge lies in striking a balance between addressing genuine cyber threats and protecting the digital rights of citizens.

The BNS also has not adequately addressed the issue of wrongful convictions and miscarriage of justice. While the code introduces some measures to expedite trials, it does not provide sufficient safeguards against false accusations or wrongful convictions. This is particularly concerning given the harsh punishments prescribed for many offenses. Similarly, the BNS’s approach to juvenile justice does not fully align with international standards on the rights of children in conflict with the law. A more rehabilitative approach, rather than a punitive one, should be adopted for juvenile offenders. Similarly, the BNS has not adequately addressed the needs of marginalized communities. The code does not do enough to protect vulnerable groups from discrimination within the criminal justice system. This includes concerns about the treatment of religious and ethnic minorities, lower castes, and economically disadvantaged groups.

Legal Doctrines and New Law

The BNS represents a significant shift in India’s criminal justice system, and its provisions can be analyzed through the lens of various criminal justice theories. These theories, including deterrence, retributive justice, and rehabilitation, offer different perspectives on the purpose and effectiveness of criminal law. Examining how the BNS aligns with or deviates from these theories provides insight into the philosophical underpinnings of this new legal framework.

Deterrence theory, one of the foundational concepts in criminal justice, posits that the threat of punishment can discourage individuals from committing crimes.⁷³ This theory operates on the assumption that potential offenders make rational decisions, weighing the benefits of criminal activity against the potential costs of punishment.⁷⁴ The BNS appears to embrace aspects of deterrence theory in several ways. For instance, the increased penalties for certain offenses, particularly those related to national security, organized crime, and offenses against women and children, seem to align with the deterrence perspective. By raising the stakes for these crimes, the BNS aims to create a stronger disincentive for potential offenders, a strategy supported by some research on the effects of punishment severity.⁷⁵ The introduction of new offenses, such as those related to cybercrime and economic offenses, also serves a deterrent function by signaling that these activities are now explicitly criminalized and will be punished, a concept known as legal socialization.⁷⁶

However, the effectiveness of deterrence relies not just on the severity of punishment but also on its certainty and swiftness.⁷⁷ While the BNS increases the severity of punishments for many offenses, it does not inherently address the issues of certainty and swiftness in the Indian criminal justice system. The chronic problems of case backlogs and low conviction rates could potentially undermine the deterrent effect of these harsher penalties.⁷⁸ Moreover, overly severe punishments can sometimes have diminishing returns in terms of deterrence,⁷⁹ potentially leading to a disconnect between the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the punishment. This phenomenon, known as the “ceiling effect,” suggests that beyond a certain point, increase in severity of punishment may not yield proportional increases in deterrence.⁸⁰

Retributive justice, another key theory in criminal law, focuses on the idea that punishment should be proportional to the crime committed.⁸¹ This theory is based on the principle of just deserts—that offenders deserve to be punished for their wrongdoing, and that this punishment should be commensurate with the harm they have caused.⁸² The BNS shows elements of retributive justice in its graduated system of punishments, where more serious offenses generally carry heavier penalties. This approach aligns with the retributive principle of ordinal proportionality, which requires that more serious crimes receive more severe punishments.⁸³ For example, the enhanced punishments for crimes against women and children could be seen as an attempt to ensure that the punishment fits the perceived severity of these offenses in contemporary Indian society, reflecting what some scholars call “empirical desert”.⁸⁴ However, the retributive aspects of the BNS is also not without limitations. The increased penalties for certain offenses, particularly those related to public order and national security, may be disproportionate and could lead to overly harsh punishments that do not serve the interests of justice. The challenge lies in striking a balance between ensuring that punishments are severe enough to reflect the gravity of the offense while avoiding excessively punitive measures that could be seen as unjust or counterproductive.

The rehabilitative approach, which emphasizes the reformation and reintegration of offenders into society, is another important theory in criminal justice.⁸⁵ This perspective focuses on addressing the root causes of criminal behavior and providing offenders with the tools and opportunities to become law-abiding citizens.⁸⁶ The BNS shows some alignment with rehabilitative principles, most notably in its introduction of community service as a form of punishment. This provision allows for alternative sentencing that could potentially aid in the rehabilitation of certain offenders, particularly for less serious crimes.⁸⁷ Such community-based sanctions are often viewed as more effective in promoting rehabilitation and reducing recidivism compared to traditional incarceration.⁸⁸

The BNS does not go far enough in embracing rehabilitative principles. The emphasis on harsher punishments for many offenses could be seen as prioritizing retribution and deterrence over rehabilitation. Moreover, the BNS does not significantly address issues such as prison reform or the provision of educational and vocational programs for offenders, which are key components of a rehabilitative approach. The lack of comprehensive measures for the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders, particularly juveniles and first-time offenders, represents a missed opportunity to fully incorporate modern rehabilitative theories into India’s criminal justice system.

In examining how the BNS aligns with or deviates from these theories, it becomes clear that the new code adopts a hybrid approach, incorporating elements of deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation to varying degrees. The increased penalties and new offenses reflect a strong emphasis on deterrence and retribution, aiming to discourage criminal behavior and ensure that punishments reflect the perceived severity of offenses in contemporary Indian society. However, the introduction of community service as a sentencing option and some provisions for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms suggest an acknowledgment of rehabilitative principles, albeit to a limited extent.

The BNS’s alignment with these theories is not uniform across all types of offenses. For crimes considered particularly harmful to society, such as terrorism, organized crime, and offenses against women and children, the code leans heavily towards deterrence and retribution. On the other hand, for some less serious offenses, there appears to be more room for rehabilitative approaches, as evidenced by the community service provision.

Scope for Improvement for the New Law

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), while representing a significant update to India’s criminal code, still has areas that could benefit from further refinement and improvement. An analysis of the BNS reveals several gaps and inconsistencies that merit attention. One notable area is the treatment of white-collar crimes and corporate offenses. While the BNS does introduce some provisions to address economic crimes, it falls short of providing a comprehensive framework for dealing with complex financial frauds and corporate malfeasance. In an era where economic crimes can have far-reaching consequences affecting millions of people, a more robust and detailed approach to these offenses is necessary.

There are also inconsistencies in the BNS’s approach to sentencing. While it introduces harsher punishments for certain offenses, the rationale behind these increases is not always clear or consistent across different types of crimes. This lack of consistency could lead to challenges in implementation and interpretation by the courts. Additionally, the BNS does not adequately address the issue of overcrowding in prisons, which is a chronic problem in the Indian penal system. By focusing primarily on increasing punishments without providing comprehensive alternatives to incarceration, the BNS may inadvertently exacerbate this issue.

To address these gaps and inconsistencies, several suggestions based on criminal law best practices can be considered. First, the BNS could benefit from a more nuanced approach to sentencing, incorporating structured sentencing guidelines that take into account various factors such as the severity of the offense, the offender’s criminal history, and potential for rehabilitation. Such guidelines, similar to those used in some Western legal systems, could help ensure more consistent and fair sentencing across different cases and jurisdictions.

Another area for improvement is the incorporation of more restorative justice practices. While the BNS introduces community service as a form of punishment, it could go further in embracing restorative approaches that focus on repairing harm and rehabilitating offenders. This could include provisions for victim-offender mediation, community impact statements, and other mechanisms that involve both the offender and the affected community in the justice process.

The BNS could also benefit from more robust provisions for the protection of vulnerable groups within the criminal justice system. This includes stronger safeguards for juveniles, mentally ill offenders, and members of marginalized communities. Incorporating international best practices in these areas, such as specialized courts for juvenile offenders and comprehensive mental health assessments for accused persons, could significantly enhance the fairness and effectiveness of the criminal justice system.

Furthermore, the BNS should consider incorporating more progressive approaches to drug-related offenses. Many countries are moving towards treating drug addiction as a public health issue rather than a criminal one. The BNS could include provisions that emphasize rehabilitation and treatment for drug users, reserving harsher punishments for large-scale traffickers and producers.

One of the key challenges in improving the BNS lies in balancing traditional and modern approaches to criminal justice. India’s legal system has deep roots in its cultural and historical context, and any reforms must be sensitive to these traditions while also addressing the needs of a rapidly modernizing society. This balance is particularly important in areas such as family law, where traditional practices often intersect with criminal law. To strike this balance, the BNS could adopt a more flexible approach that allows for the incorporation of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms rooted in traditional practices, while still maintaining the core principles of modern criminal justice. For instance, the code could recognize the role of community elders or local panchayats in resolving certain types of disputes, while ensuring that these processes adhere to basic principles of fairness and human rights.

The BNS should also consider a more comprehensive approach to addressing cybercrime and digital offenses. While it does include some provisions in this area, the rapidly evolving nature of technology means that the law needs to be flexible enough to adapt to new forms of digital crime. This could involve creating a separate chapter dedicated to cyber offenses, with provisions that are technology-neutral and can be easily updated as new threats emerge.

Another area where traditional and modern approaches need to be balanced is in the treatment of offenses against women. While the BNS does strengthen punishments for crimes against women, it could go further in addressing the root causes of gender-based violence. This might include provisions for mandatory gender sensitivity training for law enforcement officers, judges, and other stakeholders in the criminal justice system.

The BNS could also benefit from a more explicit focus on human rights protections. While many of its provisions implicitly uphold human rights principles, a more direct incorporation of international human rights standards could strengthen the code’s alignment with India’s international obligations and provide clearer guidance for its interpretation and application.

Lastly, the BNS should consider incorporating more robust provisions for police accountability and the prevention of custodial violence. While these issues are partly addressed in other laws and regulations, including stronger safeguards in the main criminal code could help combat long-standing problems in the Indian criminal justice system.

Advantages of Using LLMs in Such Studies

The application of Large Language Models (LLMs) to analyze the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) has yielded diverse and illuminating insights, demonstrating the potential of AI in legal research and policy evaluation. One of the most significant contributions of LLM analysis is its ability to identify subtle patterns and implications that might be overlooked in traditional analysis. For instance, when examining the BNS’s treatment of cybercrimes, the LLM not only highlighted new provisions but also drew attention to potential gaps in coverage by comparing these provisions with rapidly evolving global cybercrime trends. This foresight could be invaluable in anticipating future challenges in the implementation of the BNS.

LLM analysis has also provided a comprehensive view of how the BNS aligns with various criminal justice theories. By processing vast amounts of theoretical literature alongside the BNS text, the model offered a nuanced analysis of how different sections of the code reflect deterrence, retributive, or rehabilitative approaches. This holistic view helps in understanding the underlying philosophy of the BNS and how it balances different objectives of criminal justice. Furthermore, the LLM excelled in identifying potential inconsistencies or areas of ambiguity within the BNS by systematically comparing different sections of the code, flagging instances where provisions might conflict or where language could be interpreted in multiple ways.

The LLM excelled in providing a more comprehensive comparative analysis, easily referencing and comparing the BNS with criminal codes from multiple jurisdictions. This broad perspective sometimes led to insights that human experts, who might specialize in a particular legal system, hadn’t considered. Another area where the LLM showed strength was in its unbiased approach to controversial aspects of the BNS. While human experts sometimes displayed biases based on their personal or professional backgrounds, the LLM provided a more neutral analysis, presenting multiple perspectives on contentious issues without favoring any particular viewpoint.

However, human experts demonstrated superior ability in predicting practical implementation challenges based on their firsthand experience with the Indian legal system. Their insights into the potential reactions of various stakeholders—judges, lawyers, law enforcement officials—to the new provisions were more nuanced and grounded in real-world experience than the LLM’s projections. The comparison also revealed that while the LLM could process and analyze vast amounts of information quickly, human experts were better at making intuitive leaps and drawing creative connections that weren’t explicitly present in the data.

The integration of LLM analysis in legal studies raises important questions about the future of legal education and practice. Law schools and legal professionals may need to adapt to incorporate these new analytical tools, developing skills in AI-assisted legal research and analysis alongside traditional legal reasoning skills. As we move forward, it will be crucial to continue refining the methodologies for using LLMs in legal analysis, developing best practices for integrating AI insights with human expertise, and critically examining the strengths and limitations of this approach.

Conclusion

The comprehensive analysis of the BNS reveals a landmark shift in India’s criminal justice system, marking a significant departure from its colonial-era predecessor, the Indian Penal Code. This new legislation represents a concerted effort to modernize and streamline the criminal code, addressing contemporary challenges while attempting to balance traditional values with modern legal principles. The examination of the BNS through various lenses—structural changes, new offenses, sentencing modifications, theoretical underpinnings, and areas for improvement—provides a detailed understanding of its potential impact on the Indian legal landscape.

One of the key findings of this analysis is the BNS’s emphasis on addressing contemporary issues that were either absent or inadequately covered in the IPC. The introduction of new offenses related to terrorism, organized crime, and cybercrime reflects an acknowledgment of the evolving nature of criminal activities in the 21st century. Similarly, the enhanced focus on crimes against women and children, with stricter punishments and more comprehensive definitions, indicates a responsiveness to pressing social concerns. These changes suggest a more dynamic and adaptable criminal code, capable of addressing emerging threats to public safety and social order.

Another significant finding is the BNS’s attempt to strike a balance between different criminal justice theories. While it leans heavily towards deterrence and retribution in its treatment of serious offenses, evidenced by increased penalties and new criminal categories, it also shows elements of a rehabilitative approach, particularly in the introduction of community service as an alternative form of punishment. This hybrid approach reflects the complex task of crafting a criminal code that serves multiple objectives—punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, and societal protection.

The restructuring and reorganization of the code, aimed at improving clarity and ease of interpretation, is another noteworthy aspect. By consolidating related offenses and adopting more precise language, the BNS potentially offers a more accessible and navigable legal framework. This could lead to more efficient legal proceedings and potentially reduce ambiguities in the application of the law.

However, the analysis also highlights several areas where the BNS falls short or could be improved. The lack of comprehensive provisions for white-collar crimes restorative justice practices represents missed opportunities to fully modernize the criminal code. Additionally, the limited focus on addressing systemic issues such as prison overcrowding and police accountability suggests that some longstanding problems in the Indian criminal justice system may persist despite the new legislation.

The examination of the BNS underscores the critical importance of ongoing evaluation and refinement of criminal laws. Criminal legislation is not static; it must evolve in response to changing societal norms, emerging crime patterns, and advancements in our understanding of justice and rehabilitation. The introduction of the BNS should be seen not as a final step, but as the beginning of a continuous process of review and improvement.

This process of ongoing evaluation is crucial for several reasons. First, it allows for the identification and correction of any unintended consequences or unforeseen issues that may arise as the new code is implemented. The practical application of the BNS in courts and by law enforcement agencies may reveal ambiguities or inconsistencies that were not apparent in the drafting stage. Secondly, continuous evaluation provides an opportunity to assess the impact of the new provisions on crime rates, conviction rates, and the overall efficiency of the criminal justice system. This data-driven approach can inform future amendments and refinements, ensuring that the criminal code remains aligned with its objectives of deterring crime, delivering justice, and protecting societal interests. Furthermore, ongoing evaluation allows for the incorporation of new research findings and best practices in criminal justice. As our understanding of criminal behavior, rehabilitation techniques, and the societal impact of various punitive measures evolves, the criminal code should be flexible enough to incorporate these insights. This adaptability is essential for maintaining a modern, effective, and humane criminal justice system.

The analysis of the BNS also highlights the need for further research and expert analysis in several key areas. One crucial area for investigation is the potential impact of the new provisions on marginalized communities and vulnerable groups. Research should examine whether the application of the BNS leads to any unintended discriminatory effects and propose measures to ensure equal justice for all segments of society. Another important area for further study is the effectiveness of the new sentencing guidelines and alternative punishments introduced in the BNS. Longitudinal studies tracking recidivism rates, the impact of community service sentences, and the overall deterrent effect of the enhanced punishments would provide valuable insights for future refinements of the code.

Research is also needed on the implementation challenges of the BNS, particularly in terms of training requirements for legal professionals and law enforcement officials, and the necessary updates to the criminal justice infrastructure. Such studies could help in developing strategies to ensure smooth and uniform implementation of the new code across different states and jurisdictions. Expert analysis should also focus on how the BNS aligns with international human rights standards and best practices in criminal justice. This could involve comparative studies with criminal codes in other jurisdictions, particularly those that have recently undergone similar modernization processes. Additionally, there is a need for interdisciplinary research that examines the sociological and psychological impacts of the new criminal code. This could include studies on public perceptions of justice under the BNS, its effect on community cohesion, and its role in shaping societal norms and behaviors.

In conclusion, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita represents a significant milestone in the evolution of India’s criminal justice system. While it addresses many contemporary issues and introduces several progressive elements, it also leaves room for improvement and ongoing refinement. The success of this new criminal code will ultimately depend on its effective implementation, continuous evaluation, and willingness to adapt based on empirical evidence and expert analysis. As India moves forward with this new legal framework, it is imperative that policymakers, legal scholars, and practitioners remain committed to the ongoing process of refining and improving the criminal justice system. This commitment to continuous improvement, guided by rigorous research and expert analysis, will be crucial in ensuring that the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita serves its intended purpose of delivering justice, protecting society, and upholding the rights and dignity of all individuals in the diverse and complex tapestry of Indian society.

Footnotes