Author: Tanya Verma,Indore Institution of Law
Abstract
The Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS, 2023), enacted as a replacement to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, represents a significant recalibration of India’s criminal procedural framework. One of its most defining features is the express movement towards victim-centric justice, wherein the victim is no longer relegated to a peripheral role but is acknowledged as a substantive stakeholder in the criminal process. The BNSS institutionalizes participatory rights, information entitlements, compensatory mechanisms, and appellate remedies for victims, thereby harmonizing procedural law with constitutional guarantees of fairness, dignity, and access to justice. This article critically examines the conceptual foundations, statutory manifestations, evidentiary proof, and judicial alignment of victim-centric justice under BNSS, 2023, with reference to relevant case law and emerging legal principles.
Introduction
Historically, Indian criminal procedure has been predominantly state-centric, positioning the prosecution as the sole representative of societal interests, while victims remained largely invisible within the adjudicatory framework. The CrPC, 1973, though amended periodically, offered limited procedural autonomy to victims, confining their role primarily to that of witnesses. This resulted in systemic disenfranchisement, procedural opacity, and secondary victimization.
The BNSS, 2023 marks a decisive shift by recalibrating the balance between the accused, the State, and the victim. By embedding victim rights within procedural law, the legislature acknowledges that justice is incomplete unless the victim’s voice, dignity, and remedial interests are institutionally protected. Victim-centric justice under BNSS is not merely symbolic but structurally enforceable, aligning with restorative and participatory justice models.
Conceptual Framework of Victim-Centric Justice
Victim-centric justice is rooted in the principle that criminal proceedings must address not only the culpability of the accused but also the harm suffered by the victim. This approach emphasizes recognition, participation, protection, restitution, and rehabilitation of victims.
Under BNSS, the victim is statutorily recognized as a person who has suffered loss or injury caused by a criminal act or omission, including legal heirs or guardians. This expanded recognition dismantles the narrow prosecutorial lens of earlier procedural regimes and aligns Indian criminal procedure with international victim-rights jurisprudence.
Legal jargon
Right to Information and Procedural Transparency
The Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 statutorily mandates investigating authorities to ensure continuous and meaningful disclosure of case-related information to the victim. Such disclosure encompasses the registration or refusal of registration of the First Information Report, the status and progress of investigation, the submission of the charge-sheet or closure report, and timely intimation of hearing schedules and judicial outcomes.
These statutory right remedies the entrenched procedural opacity that historically excluded victims from the informational continuum of criminal proceedings. By institutionalizing transparency, the BNSS enhances investigative accountability, curtails arbitrariness in police functioning, and reinforces the victim’s legitimate expectation of participatory justice within the criminal justice system.
Right to Free Copy of First Information Report
The Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 expressly entitles the victim to obtain a copy of the First Information Report without payment of any fee. This statutory mandate fortifies procedural fairness by eliminating informational asymmetry between the investigative agency and the victim. Access to the FIR enables the victim to effectively pursue legal remedies, challenge investigative inaction or irregularities, and invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of constitutional courts where procedural violations are alleged.
Participatory Rights in Bail Proceedings
A notable reform introduced under the BNSS is the codification of the victim’s right to be heard at the stage of bail adjudication, particularly in cases involving serious and heinous offences. This provision ensures that judicial discretion in granting bail is exercised after due consideration of victim-related concerns, including personal safety, the likelihood of intimidation or witness tampering, and the broader societal ramifications of the offence. The recognition of victim participation in bail proceedings promotes a balanced exercise of judicial discretion without undermining the accused’s right to personal liberty.
Victim Participation in Plea Bargaining
The BNSS significantly strengthens the role of victims within the plea-bargaining framework by mandating their participation and informed consent in negotiated settlements. This statutory inclusion prevents unilateral prosecutorial compromises that may trivialize the harm suffered by the victim or result in disproportionate leniency towards the accused. Victim participation in plea bargaining enhances the legitimacy, proportionality, and restorative character of negotiated justice under the criminal process.
The Proof: Statutory and Constitutional Justification
The victim-centric orientation of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is firmly grounded in the constitutional guarantees enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The principles of equality before law, procedural fairness, and the right to life with dignity mandate that victims are not procedurally marginalized or excluded from the criminal justice process.
At the statutory level, the BNSS translates these constitutional imperatives into concrete legal obligations by expressly codifying victim rights rather than relegating them to judicial discretion. It imposes affirmative duties upon investigating agencies and courts, while simultaneously creating enforceable procedural entitlements in favour of victims. This legislative architecture ensures that victim rights under BNSS possess binding legal force and are not reduced to merely declaratory or aspirational norms.
Victim Compensation and Restorative Justice
BNSS reinforces the State’s obligation to implement victim compensation schemes, particularly in cases involving serious bodily injury, sexual offences, and death. Compensation under BNSS is not contingent upon conviction alone but is rooted in the principle of restorative justice.
This approach recognizes that criminal adjudication must address both penal accountability and victim rehabilitation. Compensation schemes under BNSS seek to mitigate financial, psychological, and social harm suffered by victims, thereby complementing retributive justice with restorative objective.
Challenges to Victim-Centric Justice in India
Despite progressive legislative and judicial recognition of victims’ rights, the realization of a genuinely victim-centric criminal justice system in India continues to face structural, procedural, and institutional impediments. While recent statutory reforms, including the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, signify a normative shift towards inclusivity, effective implementation remains uneven and constrained by systemic limitations.
1. Institutional and Structural Constraints
One of the foremost challenges lies in the persistent dominance of a state-centric prosecutorial model. Investigative and prosecutorial agencies continue to prioritize conviction metrics over victim rehabilitation, thereby relegating victim participation to a formalistic exercise. The absence of dedicated victim-support units and inadequate infrastructural resources further impede meaningful engagement with victims throughout the criminal process.
2. Procedural Delays and Secondary Victimization
Endemic delays in investigation, trial, and adjudication significantly undermine victim confidence in the justice delivery system. Protracted proceedings often result in repeated court appearances, prolonged uncertainty, and psychological distress, thereby subjecting victims to secondary victimization. Such delays dilute the practical efficacy of victim-centric safeguards envisioned under procedural law.
3. Lack of Awareness and Legal Literacy
A substantial segment of victims remains unaware of their procedural rights, including the right to information, participation, and compensation. Limited legal literacy, particularly among marginalized communities, restricts the effective assertion of victim entitlements. The absence of systematic legal aid and victim-oriented guidance mechanisms exacerbates this informational asymmetry.
4. Inadequate Implementation of Compensation Mechanisms
Although statutory frameworks mandate victim compensation schemes, their implementation remains inconsistent across jurisdictions. Delays in disbursement, arbitrary assessment of quantum, and bureaucratic hurdles undermine the restorative objectives of compensation. Consequently, victim compensation often operates as a discretionary relief rather than a guaranteed remedial right.
5. Balancing Victim Rights with Fair Trial Guarantees
Another critical challenge involves harmonizing victim participation with the accused constitutionally protected right to a fair trial. Excessive or unregulated victim involvement may risk prejudicing judicial neutrality or undermining procedural fairness. Courts must therefore exercise calibrated discretion to ensure that victim-centric measures do not devolve into adversarial imbalance.
6. Insufficient Sensitization of Stakeholders
The effective realization of victim-centric justice is contingent upon the sensitization of police personnel, prosecutors, and judicial officers. A lack of specialized training often results in mechanical compliance rather than purposive implementation of victim rights. Institutional resistance to reform further impedes the cultural shift required for victim-inclusive adjudication.
Judicial Approach and Case Law
Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka (2018)
The Supreme Court recognized the victim’s right to appeal as an extension of access to justice, emphasizing that victims cannot be treated as strangers to criminal proceedings.
Rekha Murarka v. State of West Bengal (2019)
The Court acknowledged the victim’s right to participate in trials through counsel, reinforcing the principle that victim participation enhances fairness without prejudicing the accused.
Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra (2013)
The Court underscored the mandatory nature of victim compensation, emphasizing that sentencing must incorporate restorative considerations.
These judicial principles find statutory consolidation under BNSS, 2023, thereby transforming judicially evolved norms into codified rights.
Conclusion
The Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 represents a landmark evolution in Indian criminal procedure by repositioning victims at the heart of the justice delivery system. Through codified participatory rights, informational transparency, appellate remedies, and compensatory mechanisms, BNSS bridges the historic gap between procedural law and victim justice.
While practical challenges remain, the victim-centric architecture of BNSS strengthens the legitimacy, fairness, and inclusivity of criminal adjudication. Its true success, however, will depend upon consistent judicial interpretation, administrative compliance, and a sustained commitment to restorative justice principles.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q1. What is victim-centric justice under BNSS, 2023?
Victim-centric justice under BNSS refers to a procedural framework that ensures active participation, information access, and remedial rights for victims throughout criminal proceedings.
Q2. Can a victim challenge an acquittal under BNSS?
Yes. BNSS expressly empowers victims to file appeals against acquittals, inadequate sentences, or convictions for lesser offences.
Q3. Are victims entitled to information about investigation status?
Yes. BNSS mandates that victims must be informed about investigation progress, court proceedings, and case outcomes.
Q4. Does victim participation violate the accused’s right to fair trial?
No. Victim participation under BNSS is regulated and subject to judicial oversight, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice.
Q5. Is victim compensation mandatory under BNSS?
BNSS strengthens the obligation of the State to provide compensation, particularly in serious offences, aligning criminal procedure with restorative justice objectives.
