A New Law, but the Same Chains: the Colonial Mindset of India’s Legal System Persists

On July 1, 2024, India replaced its colonial-era legal codes with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), promising a break from British-imposed structures. However, Dr. Ryan Baidya argues these reforms are largely superficial, as the justice system’s foundational mindset remains colonial in nature—prioritizing control over service.

Despite reductions in legal sections and the introduction of modern offenses, around 70% of the old Indian Penal Code survives in substance. Police continue to exercise wide discretionary powers—such as arrest without warrant—without adequate oversight, and citizens still face delays, intimidation, and procedural injustice. Key reforms like a Citizen’s Charter of Legal Rights, independent complaint mechanisms, and protections against police abuse are missing.

The article proposes five structural changes to truly decolonize the legal system:

1. A Fourth Branch of Government – An independent Citizen Oversight Authority.
2. Citizen Rights Charter – Mandatory rights disclosure and digital accountability.
3. Time-bound Justice – Statutory deadlines and performance audits.
4. Legal Aid and Compensation – Universal access and state accountability.
5. Civic Re-education of Law Enforcement – Annual training and public feedback loops.

The article concludes that a nation is not free by new laws alone; it must transform its institutions to serve citizens, not rule them. Without addressing the embedded colonial logic, legal reform will remain a mirage, and true justice will be denied to India’s people.

On July 1, 2024, India replaced three colonial-era legal codes with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)—replacing the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Indian Evidence Act, respectively. These landmark legislative changes were touted as a decisive break from the colonial past. But has the Indian citizen finally been unshackled?

Not quite. The hard truth is this: India’s justice system continues to treat its citizens not as masters of a sovereign republic, but as subjects begging for service, accountability, and dignity.

Colonial Roots, Colonial Rot

The Indian Penal Code (IPC), enacted in 1860, was not crafted to serve Indians—it was built to control them. The police force created under the 1861 Police Act was not a civilian service agency, but a tool to suppress resistance and enforce imperial rule. Unfortunately, despite 75 years of independence, the ethos of the system has not changed. The uniform, the station, the courtroom—these remain symbols of authority, not service.

Even the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, while reducing the number of sections and introducing contemporary offences like terrorism or cybercrime, retains nearly 70% of the old IPC’s content. A few archaic provisions were pruned, some penalties modernized, but the hierarchical foundation remains intact. The real question is not what was removed, but what was preserved—and why.

Begging for Justice

The average Indian citizen still dreads entering a police station. Filing a First Information Report (FIR), accessing medical-legal reports, or securing bail often involves intimidation, delay, or informal payments. Despite Supreme Court mandates and new laws, police discretion and abuse of power remain rampant. Citizens must plead for services that should be automatic rights.

In a democracy, police should function as public servants—accountable, transparent, and responsive. Instead, they wield unchecked power. Even in the updated BNSS, officers retain wide authority to arrest without warrant, investigate without transparency, and act with impunity. There is no independent body the citizen can approach to hold the police accountable in real time. Power continues to reside with the position—not with the people.

The Legal System Exploits the Powerless

Justice in India is neither swift nor accessible. Over 50 million cases are pending, with trials dragging on for years, sometimes decades. Legal aid is often ineffective. Wealth and influence, not truth or fairness, often determine the outcome of cases. And when the justice system fails, there is no efficient or timely way to hold it accountable.

Even the courts, while independent on paper, often mirror the same hierarchy. Citizens must petition, plead, and wait. The system exhausts the very people it is meant to serve. As a result, the poor and powerless remain trapped in cycles of legal delay, financial ruin, and procedural injustice.

Cosmetic Reforms Cannot Dismantle Colonial Thinking

The replacement of legal codes may give the appearance of decolonization, but changing words on paper is not the same as changing a system’s soul. For that, we must uproot the colonial mindset that places power over service and obedience over accountability.

Despite introducing digital tools, new offences, and procedural tweaks, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and its companions have not dismantled the master-servant model of governance. Citizens still serve the system, rather than the system serving the citizen.

From IPC to BNS: Modern Cover, Same Mentality

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 replaced the IPC, 1860. While it reduced the number of sections from 511 to 358, over 70% of the content remains conceptually identical.

Example 1: Police Powers & Arrests

Old Law – CrPC Section 41: Allowed police to arrest without a warrant for cognizable offences.

New Law – BNSS Section 35: Continues the same power with even broader discretionary language:

“A police officer may, without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person…”
— with little change in how discretion is monitored.

Result: Wide discretionary arrest powers remain untouched. No citizen safeguard or mandatory oversight is introduced.

Example 2: Absence of Independent Redress

BNSS Sections 174–176 still rely on executive-controlled Magistrates to order inquiries into custodial deaths or police abuse.

No new provision creates an independent citizen complaints board.

Result: A citizen still must appeal to the same system that violated their rights to investigate itself.

Example 3: Missing Procedural Rights Charter

Despite the overhaul, no section of BNSS or BNS introduces a “Citizen Bill of Legal Rights”, akin to Miranda Rights in the U.S.

Contrast:

In the U.S., a citizen is told: “You have the right to remain silent…”

In India, the police are not obligated to inform a citizen of their rights under arrest or interrogation.

Continued Criminalization of Dissent and Expression

While the notorious IPC Section 124A (Sedition) has been “repealed,” its spirit returns under a new name in BNS.

Example 4: Sedition Reinvented

Old Law – IPC Section 124A: Sedition (used to target dissenters, activists, and journalists)

New Law – BNS Section 150:

“Whoever, purposely or knowingly, by words…excites or attempts to excite secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities…”

Result: The language may sound modern, but it allows the state to use vague terminology to criminalize dissent, especially with no safeguard to distinguish between criticism and subversion.

Exploitation and Delay Still Define Justice Delivery

Example 5: Remand and Pretrial Detention

BNSS Section 187 (Custody Rules): Police can still seek 15 days’ judicial custody, extendable up to 60–90 days for investigation.

No mandate exists to justify delay or provide automatic legal aid unless requested.

Result: Thousands of undertrial prisoners, mostly poor and marginalized, remain jailed for years without conviction—a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution (right to life and liberty).

Example 6: Burden of Proof in Sexual Assault Cases

BSA Section 120 (formerly Section 114A of Evidence Act): Presumes lack of consent if the woman states it—a positive step.

However, no structural reform ensures that evidence collection (like medical exams, witness protection, etc.) happens within time-bound, citizen-protected protocols.

Result: Survivors still face apathy, intimidation, or procedural lapses that ruin prosecution.

What Has Not Changed?

What Must Change — A Vision for a Democratic Legal System

To make the citizen the true master of the republic, India must go beyond legislative substitution and undertake deep structural reform. If India is to truly decolonize, it must transform the logic of law enforcement and justice delivery. This requires five structural pillars:

1. A Fourth Branch of Government: Citizen Oversight Authority

Establish an independent constitutional body—“The Civil Oversight Commission” or “Police of Police”—with powers to:

• Investigate police and prosecutorial misconduct
• Audit arbitrary arrests and delays
• Protect whistleblowers and victims of systemic abuse
• Submit binding recommendations to courts and legislatures

This body must be insulated from political interference, akin to the Election Commission of India (ECI) or Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG).

1. Citizen Rights Charter and Mandatory Disclosure

Every police station and court must be legally bound to:

• Display a “Citizen’s Charter of Legal Rights”
• Inform citizens of their rights at every point of contact
• Offer digital acknowledgment for complaints/FIRs filed
• Penalize non-compliance with departmental consequences

Just as the Right to Information empowered citizens to question bureaucracy, the Right to Legal Service and Protection must be clearly defined and enforced.

1. Time-bound Justice and Legal Accountability

The new laws lack any strict timeline for case registration, investigation, or adjudication. The citizen remains at the mercy of the system’s whims.

We propose:

• Statutory deadlines for each legal stage (FIR, charge sheet, bail hearing)
• Automatic review and compensation for cases delayed beyond deadlines
• Randomized performance audits of police stations and lower courts

1. Legal Aid and Compensation Framework

Justice must not depend on wealth or access.

We propose:

• Universal digital legal aid access portal with registered citizen advocates
• Guaranteed state compensation for wrongful arrest, custodial abuse, and acquittals after prolonged trials
• Community service alternatives for minor offences to reduce jail overpopulation and cost

1. Civic Re-education of Law Enforcement

A democratic system requires that its police, judges, and prosecutors are trained in citizen-first ethics, not colonial control.

We propose:

• Mandatory yearly training on constitutional duties and citizen dignity
• Publicly visible complaint resolution metrics for every officer and station
• Institutionalization of feedback loops, where citizens rate services received

Laws Must Serve the People, Not Rule Them

A nation does not become free by merely writing its laws in a new script. It becomes free when the citizen can walk into a police station without fear, file a complaint without a bribe, and expect timely, fair, and respectful justice.

A New Social Contract

It is time to break the silent contract of servitude that the citizen has been forced to sign—one that assumes they are guilty, powerless, or invisible. India must draft a new social contract, embedded in a truly democratic constitution, where the citizen is not ruled—but served. Only then will independence, justice, and dignity mean something beyond ceremonial speeches and renamed statutes.

In Conclusion, Laws May Change, but Freedom Requires More

True justice demands more than a new statute book. It requires a transformation in governance culture—from one that rules over the citizen to one that answers to them. As long as India retains the mindset of the British Raj, of rulers and ruled, of power without accountability, legal reform will remain an illusion. The citizen will continue to beg, and the system will continue to exploit.

India must not only rewrite its laws but also reimagine its institutions—to finally become a republic of masters, not subjects.