JAN VISHWAS BILL - POLITY
News: Letter
and Spirit | A failed attempt at decriminalization
What's in the news?
● Last
week, the Union Government tabled the Jan Vishwas Bill, 2022, (Bill) in the
Parliament with the objective of “decriminalizing”
183 offences across 42 legislations and enhancing the ease of living and doing
business in India.
● It
is a welcome move and can be viewed as an attempt to reverse the trend of overcriminalization.
● However,
there is much that needs to be done in order to institutionalize efforts aimed
at decriminalization.
Key features of Jan Vishwas Bill:
1. Fines instead of penal provisions:
● The
Jan Vishwas Bill either omits penal provisions or replaces them with fines in
legislations such as the Air Act, Environment Protection Act, Forest Act, Drugs
and Cosmetics Acts, Cinematograph Act, Patents Act, Trade Marks Act and
Information Technology Act amongst several others.
● These
are primarily offences which are regulatory in nature.
● Agricultural Produce
(Grading and Marking) Act, 1937:
○ The
counterfeiting grade designation marks are punishable with imprisonment of up
to three years and a fine of up to five thousand rupees. The Bill replaces this
with a penalty of eight lakh rupees.
● Information Technology
Act, 2000:
○ Disclosing
personal information in breach of a lawful contract is punishable with
imprisonment of up to three years, or a fine of up to five lakh rupees, or
both. The Bill replaces this with a penalty of up to 25 lakh rupees.
● Patents Act, 1970:
○ A
person selling a falsely represented article as patented in India is subject to
a fine of up to one lakh rupees. The Bill replaces the fine with a penalty,
which may be up to ten lakh rupees. In
case of a continuing claim, there shall be an additional penalty of one
thousand rupees per day.
2. Revision of fines and penalties:
● The
Bill increases the fines and penalties for various offences in the specified
Acts.
● Further,
these fines and penalties will be
increased by 10% of the minimum amount every three years.
3. Appointing adjudicating officers:
● As
per the Bill, the Central Government may
appoint one or more adjudicating officers for the purpose of determining
penalties.
● The
adjudicating officers may:
○ summon
individuals for evidence, and
○ conduct
inquiries into violations of the respected Acts.
● These
Acts include: the Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Act, 1937, the Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the Environment (Protection)
Act, 1986, and the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991.
4. Appellate mechanism:
● The
Bill also specifies the appellate mechanisms for any person aggrieved by the
order passed by an adjudicating officer.
● For
instance, in the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, appeals may be filed with
the National Green Tribunal within 60 days from the order.
Why this Bill?
1. Rise in criminal cases:
● An
unprincipled growth of criminal law has long been a cause of concern for
scholars of law.
2. Political motives:
● The
act of criminalization often becomes a medium for governments to put across a
strong image as opposed to punishing wrongful conduct.
3. Over-criminalization:
● Governments
offer little in the way of justifications to support such decisions. This
phenomenon has been termed “overcriminalization” by scholars.
4. Increased burden on Judiciary:
● As
per the National Judicial Data Grid, of the 4.3 crore pending cases, nearly 3.2 crore cases are in relation to
criminal proceedings.
5. Overcrowding of prisons:
● Similarly,
the rise in the prison population is also proof of this. As per the NCRB’s
Prison Statistics of 2021, a total of 5.54 lakh prisoners were confined in
prisons against a capacity of 4.25 lakh.
Challenges:
The
intent of the Bill is merely to ensure that imprisonment is replaced with fines
for as many offences as possible.
1. Quasi-Decriminalization:
● In
the current bill the stress has been on the replacement of imprisonment clauses
with fines.
● This
can hardly be termed as 'decriminalization'.
● There
is much that is required for the efforts aimed at decriminalization to fructify
in any meaningful way.
2. Less deregulated offences:
● The
Observer Research Foundation's report
titled Jailed for Doing Business found that there are more than 26,134
imprisonment clauses in a total of 843 economic legislations, rules and
regulations which seek to regulate businesses and economic activities in India.
● In
this backdrop the number of offences deregulated are too low.
3. Narrow scope of Ease of doing business:
● The
regulatory offences to be considered for 'decriminalization' need to be prioritized
not only from the point of view of the ease of doing business, but also from
the points of view of the ills that plague our criminal justice system itself.
4. Decriminalization is aimed at just regulatory
framework laws:
● The
Bill conforms to the understanding of the government that decriminalization
should be limited to regulatory domains.
● However,
the time is now ripe to shift focus to existing penal offences as well.
● Debates
are ongoing about the decriminalization of several penal offences such as
sedition. offences under NDPS Act & UAPA Acts, triple talaq and
anticonversion laws etc.
● There
is an urgent need to assess these offences on a principled basis.
5. Hefty fines cannot create deterrence:
● The
Jan Vishwas Bill either omits penal provisions or replaces them with fines in
legislation.
● These
are primarily offences which are regulatory in nature.
The
intent of the Bill is merely to ensure that imprisonment is replaced with fines
for as many offences as possible. The extent to which it succeeds in 'decriminalizing'
offences, however, is questionable. If these faults are to be rectified, it is
pertinent that a more comprehensive exercise is undertaken and that the
government prioritize the needs and requirements of the criminal justice
system.