INDIAN PENAL CODE

Subject : Polity

Context : Union Minister of State for Home Affairs said  that States have been asked for their suggestions to amend the British era Indian Penal Code.

Concept :

What is IPC?

• The IPC replaced Mohammedan Criminal Law, which had a very close relationship with Islam. Thus, the IPC laid the foundation of secularism.
• It was widely appreciated as a state-of-the-art code and was, indeed, the first codification of criminal law in the British Empire
• Today, it is the longest serving criminal code in the common-law world.

Why it needs a review?

• IPC, 1860 requires a thorough revision to meet the needs of the 21st century. In 1860, the IPC was certainly ahead of the times but has been unable to keep pace since then.
• Macaulay had himself favoured regular revision of the code whenever gaps or ambiguities were found or experienced.
• Even though the IPC has been haphazardly amended more than 75 times, no comprehensive revision has been undertaken in spite of the 42nd report of the law commission in 1971 recommending it — the amendment bills of 1971 and 1978 lapsed due to the dissolution of the Lok Sabha.
• Most amendments have been ad hoc and reactive, in response to immediate circumstances like the 2013 amendment after the Delhi gangrape case.

Areas that need reforms:

• Some of the concepts underlying the code are either problematic or have become obsolete.
• A re-examination of the sedition law, inserted in 1898, is necessary.
• The offence of blasphemy should have no place in a liberal democracy and, therefore, there is a need to repeal Section 295A, which was inserted in 1927.
• Criminal conspiracy was made a substantive offence in 1913. The offence is objectionable because it was added to the code by the colonial masters to deal with political conspiracies.
• Under Section 149 on unlawful assembly, the principle of constructive liability is pushed to unduly harsh lengths.
• The distinction between “culpable homicide” and “murder” was criticised even by Stephen as the “weakest part of the code”, as the definitions are obscure.
• Sexual offences under the code reveal patriarchal values and Victorian morality. Though the outmoded crime of adultery gives the husband sole proprietary rights over his wife’s sexuality, it gives no legal protection to secure similar monopoly over the husband’s sexuality.
• Section 377 also needs a review.