The Madras High Court has delivered a significant endorsement of India's recently enacted criminal laws, describing them as a transformative step towards a justice-centric democratic framework. Justice L Victoria Gowri, in a recent order, highlighted that the new legal codes consciously re-engineer the criminal process to prioritize victims, citizens, and timely justice, moving away from the colonial-era statutes designed for imperial control.
A Constitutional Transformation in Criminal Jurisprudence
Justice Gowri, while issuing directions to a police officer on December 2, 2025, termed the implementation of the new laws a "constitutional transformation." She observed that for the first time since Independence, the criminal process has been redesigned to be victim-centric and citizen-responsive. This stands in stark contrast to the old colonial enactments, which were historically crafted to subserve the interests of an imperial administration and control its subjects.
The bench was specifically hearing a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The petitioner sought a direction for the Crime Branch police inspector of Theni district to file a final report in a case where an FIR was registered against him on February 21. The petitioner's counsel, Advocate V Muthusamundeeswaran, argued that the prolonged delay contradicted the statutory mandate for time-bound investigation under Section 193 of the BNSS.
Mandating Timeliness and Accountability in Investigations
The court's observations centered on the core principles of the new laws—the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, all of 2023. Justice Gowri asserted that these laws recognize "delay as a denial of justice" and emphasize timeliness, transparency, accountability, and proportionality.
The bench elaborated that the BNSS codifies strict timelines to ensure investigations are not prolonged indefinitely. Key provisions highlighted by the court include:
- Section 193(1): Mandates that every investigation shall be completed without unnecessary delay.
- Section 193(2): Requires that for offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or more, investigation must ordinarily be completed within ninety days.
- For all other offences, the investigation must be completed within sixty days.
- Section 193(3): Compels the investigating officer to record reasons in writing and intimate the magistrate if the investigation exceeds the prescribed period.
The court stated that these provisions create a positive duty for prompt investigation, set outer time limits, and establish a compulsory accountability mechanism for any delay. "These provisions are mandatory in nature and bind the investigating agency," the bench added.
Court Directs Police to Adhere to Statutory Timelines
In the specific case before it, the court noted that the investigation had not culminated in a final report even after the lapse of the period contemplated under Section 193(2) of the BNSS. There was no evidence that the reasons for the delay were recorded or intimated to the jurisdictional magistrate as required by law.
The bench warned that such unexplained delay defeats the very purpose of the reformed statutory architecture, which aims to make the criminal process an instrument of justice rather than a prolonged ordeal. Emphasizing that timely investigation is the first guarantee of fairness to both victims and the accused, the court ordered the investigating officer to complete the probe and file a final report before the jurisdictional court within eight weeks.
The officer was further directed to record reasons in writing and place them before the magistrate if the investigation could not be completed within this new timeline. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to seek legal remedies if its directions were not complied with.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's push for a systemic shift, affirming that the new criminal laws embody a decisive move from a "punitive colonial framework to a justice-centric democratic framework."
