It is important that the offences in any penal law are clearly defined. Those who administer the law must know what offence has been committed so that arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement does not occur. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court held Section 66A of the Information Technology Act as unconstitutional. It found the term “grossly offensive” in the Section to be vague and devoid of precision. Recently, the Central government introduced a few new offences in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Bill to deal sternly with terrorism-related crimes and organised crimes. It is feared that some terms in the Bill may be challenged as they are vague.
Additions and omissions
The number of sections in the Sanhita has been reduced, mainly because various sections pertaining to ‘definition’ have been merged into one section, offences and punishments have been clubbed together, and offences of a similar nature brought under one section. A few omitted sections are unnatural offences (Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code), adultery (Section 497 of the IPC) and attempt to commit suicide (Section 309 of the IPC, though not completely).
