On June 23, authorities arrested Sarju Prasad, a pastor in Uttar Pradesh, for conducting Sunday worship in his house. Earlier that day, two Hindu men, one claiming to be a journalist, had entered his house throughout the morning service and brought photographs.
That evening, two policemen detained Prasad on charges of plans to commit cognizable offenses. However, their explanations only got here out later; on the time, they didn’t notify him of the grounds of arrest, a violation of India’s Code of Criminal Procedure. They also ignored the procedure’s requirement that the offender be brought before a judge inside 24 hours of being taken into custody.
Instead, Prasad was only presented before a magistrate two days later and was released on bail on June 25. Shortly after, on July 2, while collecting his cellphone on the police station, authorities re-arrested him, saying that he had violated the state’s anti-conversion law. This time, he was denied bail and is now in prison.
Prasad’s case is just one in every of many where the local police have allegedly colluded with Hindu extremists and arrested Christians conducting peaceful prayers, tyrannizing their rights. Indian Christians are apprehensive about what might occur under the brand new criminal laws which have replaced their three British-era counterparts. Described as “draconian” by some legal experts, the laws has elicited criticism and protests, and Christian, Muslim, and other vulnerable communities fear possible abuses of the brand new laws.
The Parliament of India approved the three recent laws last December without following due process, in keeping with the opposition. They replaced the Indian Penal Code with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Code of Criminal Procedure with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and the Indian Evidence Act with the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), all of which got here into effect on July 1.
Proponents argue that these long-overdue reforms aim to modernize the justice system, leveraging technology to enhance efficiency and accessibility, reminiscent of allowing police complaints to be registered remotely or permitting the usage of videos as court evidence.
Further, India needs laws “not based on colonial prejudices and practices but on the principles of access of justice to all,” said Rajiv Mani, secretary of the Legislative Department. “The three laws have hence been enacted to overhaul the criminal justice system within the country to make it citizen-centric.”
However, critics contend that the brand new laws grant the federal government excessive authority through the police to limit free speech and to crack down on those that express dissent or criticism of the federal government, potentially infringing on civil liberties and disproportionately affecting minority communities.
For instance, Father Stan Swamy, an advocate for the tribals and the Dalits, was arrested under the terrorist act. Father Swamy believed this was a deliberate effort “to place me out of the way in which, and one easy way was to implicate me in some serious cases.” Despite his deteriorating health conditions and being 84, Swamy was ultimately denied bail and died while incarcerated in 2021.
Christians in India, who lately have been subject to violence and other persecution by the hands of Hindu nationalists and the police, now worry that speaking out about their plight could lead on to prosecution. They have witnessed several cases where the police have been mere spectators while Hindu extremists barged into churches, disrupting services, vandalizing church property, and assaulting the pastor.
Christians have also been falsely implicated previously for desecrating Hindu idols, reminiscent of when Hindu extremists planted broken idols near the property of a Christian man. Ironically, the identical law just isn’t applicable to Hindu extremists who desecrate Christian religious symbols.
In a newer instance, on July 27, Hindu extremists entered a Catholic school in Madhya Pradesh and objected to the Christian religious symbols on the college premises and in the school rooms. In the presence of the police, they removed Christian images and symbols from the school rooms and installed pictures of Hindu idols. Yet no motion has been taken against the mob—as a substitute, against the college. These stories of law enforcement officials acting sympathetically to Hindu extremists signifies that minority groups fear nearly any laws giving law enforcement officers more power.
Many already imagine that the criminal justice system has been stacked against minorities: 76 percent of prisoners sentenced to death in India between 2000 and 2015 were from “backward classes and spiritual minorities,” according to a 2016 study.
As India grapples with these significant changes to its legal landscape, CT spoke with Robin Ratnakar David, a Christian and a lawyer practicing on the Supreme Court of India, to grasp the implications of those recent laws, particularly for India’s minority communities.
Were these recent criminal laws crucial?
The recent criminal laws largely repurpose and consolidate existing ones. While there are some recent provisions, the essence stays unchanged, raising questions on the need of such an intensive overhaul when amendments could have sufficed.
For laws to be effective and just, they need to be shaped by inclusive dialogue with various stakeholders, including legal experts, civil society organizations, and the affected communities. On the contrary, when these bills were passed in Parliament, no proper debate was conducted, as many ministers had been suspended.
If the goal was to modernize and improve the legal framework, overhauling the Police Act of 1861 would have been more impactful. Viewed widely as unprofessional, insensitive, brutal, and corrupt, this measure was designed for colonial control relatively than public service. The British instated it after the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny, a rebel against the British East India Company’s rule led primarily by Indian soldiers (sepoys).
The Indian government has previously beneficial police reforms, and, in 2006, a Model Police Act was suggested, which was not fully implemented.
What elements of the brand new criminal laws could pose problems for Christians and other vulnerable groups?
Previously, the laws concerning terrorism were only present in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), which just isn’t related to the recently enacted three laws and remains to be in effect. Under this laws, the police require prior written permission from the designated authority before seizing the property of the accused. Terrorism now also falls under the brand new BNS law and provides the police a free hand in seizing any property related to the crime. The BNS’s definition of terrorism can also be broader. The UAPA requires an intention to strike terror, while the BNS includes acts intended “to intimidate most people or disturb public order.”
This overlap creates legal ambiguity, allowing the police free rein to make a decision whether to book a case under the UAPA or BNS. If the goal was to expand terrorism laws, amending the UAPA might need been more appropriate than introducing parallel but contradictory definitions within the BNS. There is theory that including these provisions under the BNS could lead on to its use disproportionately against minorities, as has been the case with the UAPA.
What other sections would you call out?
The BNS has one other section that states that anyone who “excites or attempts to excite secession or armed rebel or subversive activities” has broken the law. The broad and potentially vague definitions raise concerns about potential misuses against dissenters, activists, and minority groups.
This section (305d of the BNS) punishes the theft of vehicles, government property, religious idols, and icons with as much as seven years’ imprisonment. There’s already concerns that this will likely be subjectively applied and used to focus on the Christian community.
What should Christians know in regards to the BSA’s recent provisions regarding admission of electronic evidence in court?
In 2014, India’s Supreme Court warned that electronic evidence will be easily altered, potentially resulting in unfair trials if not properly protected. The recent BSA allows electronic records as evidence in court, reminiscent of website content, text messages, server logs, computer/laptop/smartphone data, emails, location data, etc. However, it fails to incorporate measures to make sure the authenticity and integrity of digital evidence. This lack of safeguards raises concerns in regards to the potential misuse or manipulation of electronic proof in legal proceedings.
Christians who’re within the habit of streaming their Sunday church services live and uploading their sermons and messages, prayers and prayer meetings, should keep all of this in mind. Christians should monitor and moderate content responsibly, as failure to administer content can result in liability.
Christians should take extra care while posting content, ensuring it’s respectful and appropriate. They must share only accurate and verified information. They must obtain permission before they share another person’s content. And they need to not post any defamatory or illegal material.
How do you reply to claims that these laws give police broader powers that may very well be misused against vulnerable communities?
Since this act has been recently enacted, it could be too early to comment definitively on the potential abuse of police powers.
An area of concern is that BNSS Section 187 allows the police to detain and query an accused person for a complete of 15 days. That was the case earlier as well, but that was 15 days in a row, unlike on this recent law, where the 15 days will be spread over 40 to 60 days of the whole detention period of 60 to 90 days. This signifies that as a substitute of being questioned for a continuous 15-day period, the police can repeatedly detain, release, and re-arrest the accused.
This approach could delay the accused’s anxiety and uncertainty for up to a few months, potentially getting used as a method of harassment. It could also result in the denial of bail for the whole period until the police exhaust the 15-day custody allowance.
There is a legitimate concern that this provision may very well be misused by the police as a method of undue harassment without corresponding provisions to handle police misconduct. Petitions difficult the implementation of those laws have been filed in high courts and the Supreme Court.
Are some critics exaggerating the hazards while overlooking the true issue of legal awareness amongst minorities?
While some critics may emphasize the hazards, it is usually crucial to handle the true issue of legal awareness amongst minorities. Ensuring that each one residents are informed about their rights and the laws may help mitigate potential misuse and promote fair enforcement. Increasing legal literacy and awareness can empower minorities and reduce the danger of discriminatory practices on the enforcement level.
Thus, while vigilance against potential misuse is crucial, fostering legal awareness and education inside vulnerable communities is equally critical to making sure justice and equality for all.
