Keeping Pace with Legal Change
Section 28 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 expresses that consent cannot be offered when taken out of fear, misapprehension, stupor, soundness of mind, or by a kid younger than twelve years in order to offer protection against duplicity, compulsion, and other subjection to justice.
The Mohak Mangal vs. ANI case raises concerns about whether demanding payment to avoid copyright strikes qualifies as criminal extortion under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, highlighting the thin line between legal enforcement and coercive tactics.
The Manoharlal Dhakad case underscores the relevance of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in regulating obscene acts in public spaces. It reflects how modern legal provisions aim to safeguard public morality while balancing individual freedoms and expression.
Section 106 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita can be called draconian that imposed harsh punishment reaching up to ten years of imprisonment to hit-and-run drivers and two years to the careless doctors as medical and transport communities protested all over India.
Section 26 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 protects individuals who act harmlessly in good faith and with consent even if their actions risk harm. It ensures that medical procedures, emergency rescues, and similar interventions performed to benefit someone and with their informed consent are not treated as criminal offences.
The Supreme Court will hear a plea challenging the arrest of Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, detained on May 18, 2025, over a Facebook post on Operation Sindoor. Arrested under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for allegedly endangering sovereignty and promoting enmity, Mahmudabad’s post praised India’s military action but criticized selective support for Muslim officers. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal argues the arrest violates free speech under Article 19(1)(a). The case highlights tensions between national security and academic freedom, with the Court set to examine potential legal misuse. Updates are available on Legal Maestros.
If a person is legally required—either by oath or by a provision of law—to tell the truth or make a declaration, and he knowingly makes a false statement, or states something without believing it to be true, he is said to give false evidence.
The Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat is the subject of this article, which provides an explanation of major legal issues like the differemce between FIR in old and new criminal law. The protection of free speech under Article 19(1)(a), the significance of police discretion under BNSS, and the role of the judiciary in avoiding the misuse of criminal law against lawful expression are all brought to light by this.
A swift legal and judicial backlash was sparked as a result of the insulting remarks made by BJP minister Kunwar Vijay Shah against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi. These remarks were made in accordance with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The authorities brought attention to the serious nature of communalized and defamatory speech by invoking Sections 152, 196(1)(b), and 197(1)(c). This speech poses a threat to national security, public tranquility, and integration. The First Information Report (FIR) and the subsequent judicial inspection both serve to convey the message that political speech is associated with significant obligations and that the new criminal code will not hesitate to penalize instances of transgression. As India continues to negotiate the issues of diversity and democracy, the Qureshi case stands as a landmark in terms of defining the boundaries of what constitutes acceptable public debate and protecting the dignity of its individuals and institutions.
The excitement around GTA 6 highlights the broader question of how India’s obscenity laws apply to interactive digital media. While Section 292 IPC and Section 67 IT Act establish a foundation, they were not drafted with video games in mind. Landmark decisions have shifted the legal test from the rigid Hicklin standard to a community-based approach, allowing for more nuanced judgments. Yet, the absence of clear rules for digital gaming means that enforcement remains uncertain. To safeguard both societal values and freedom of expression, India needs a tailored regulatory mechanism for video games. Such a mechanism would address the unique challenges of interactivity, global distribution, and evolving community standards, ensuring that the law remains relevant in the digital age.
