Amicus Urges Supreme Court To Revise Draft Criminal Practice Rules In Light Of BNSS, BSA Changes

In the long-pending suo motu matter concerning deficiencies in criminal trials, the Supreme Court is set to consider a comprehensive compilation filed by Amicus Curiae Sidharth Luthra, seeking adoption of revised Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2026, in supersession of the 2021 framework.

The suo motu case, titled In Re: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials, led to the 2021 judgment, where the Court framed Draft Rules of Criminal Practice and directed States and High Courts to implement them within six months.

With the coming into force of the new criminal codes, namely the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the amicus has urged the Court to recalibrate the 2021 Rules to align them with the new procedural and evidentiary architecture, particularly the technology-driven provisions introduced under the BNSS and BSA.

Background

In April 2021, the Supreme Court framed uniform Draft Rules of Criminal Practice to address systemic gaps in investigation, charge-framing, trial procedure, evidence marking, and judgment writing. The Court also directed consequential amendments to police manuals and High Court rules.

Subsequently, in March 2022, Registrars General and Chief Secretaries were directed to file Action Taken Reports.

However, with the enactment of the BNSS and BSA, which formally incorporate audio-visual recording, digital evidence management and time-bound procedures, the amicus contends that the 2021 Rules require structured modification to prevent overlap and ensure doctrinal consistency.

It is prayed that the revised Rules be treated as binding directions under Article 142 until formally adopted by High Courts.

Key Changes Proposed In Investigation And Trial

1. Mandatory Audio-Video Recording

The revised draft emphasises compliance with BNSS provisions mandating or enabling audio-visual recording of:

• Scene of crime under Section 176 BNSS
• Search and seizure under Section 105 BNSS
• Statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS

Evidence during trial

The Ministry of Home Affairs has issued a detailed SOP for audio-video recording under BNSS, prescribing:

• Hash value generation
• Dual certification under Section 63(4) BSA
• Chain of custody documentation
• Secure storage and mirroring of digital evidence

The amicus seeks directions for uniform SOP adoption across States and Union Territories, including encryption standards, access control mechanisms and tamper-proof storage.

2. Dual Certification Under BSA

A significant shift under the BSA is the requirement of certification under Section 63(4) for electronic records.

The SOP contemplates:

• Part A certificate by the operator or officer in charge
• Part B certificate by a designated expert

The amicus has highlighted the need for States to notify experts under Section 329 BNSS and Section 79A of the IT Act to operationalise this requirement.

3. Time-Bound Framing Of Charge

The revised Rules stress compliance with Section 251(1)(b) and Section 263 BNSS, which mandate framing of charge within 60 days from the first hearing on charge.

The amicus notes that this timeline applies equally to Special Courts, including those under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

4. Standardisation Of Evidence Recording

The draft reiterates that:

• Depositions must be paragraph-numbered
• Exhibits must carry witness-linked marking
• Omnibus marking of entire Section 161 or 164 statements must be avoided
• Evidence should be recorded in AV format wherever feasible

Judgments must contain:

• Points for determination
• Findings
• Reasons
• Structured appendices listing witnesses and exhibits

Bail Timelines And Undertrial Concerns

The amicus has also sought structured bail timelines:

• Bail applications in non-bailable offences to be disposed of within 3 to 7 days
• Prioritisation of undertrials in custody beyond five years
• Release on personal bond where detention exceeds likely sentence

Reliance is placed on the directions passed in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Hussain v. Union of India.

Witness Protection: Uneven Compliance Across States

The amicus has flagged inconsistent implementation of witness protection schemes under Section 398 BNSS, which now statutorily codifies the framework earlier approved in Mahender Chawla v. Union of India.

States and UTs that have issued schemes include Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Tripura, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Punjab, Uttarakhand, Chandigarh and Delhi. Maharashtra continues with its 2017 statute.

States such as Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and others are yet to notify schemes under Section 398 BNSS. In one matter, notice has already been issued to Madhya Pradesh regarding non-notification.

The amicus has sought status reports and timelines for promulgation.

e-True Copy Rules As Model Framework

The compilation also annexes the e-True Copy Rules of the High Court of Delhi, 2024, notified by the Delhi High Court.

These Rules provide:

• Electronic applications for e-true copies
• Free supply of authenticated digital copies
• Stranger access subject to safeguards
• IT Act compliant authentication

The amicus proposes that similar regulations be framed across all States and UTs to ensure uniform digital access.

Union-Level Directions Sought

The Court has been requested to:

• Seek a national roadmap from the Ministry of Law and Justice for integrated e-court services
• Obtain reports from the Ministry of Home Affairs and MeitY on secure digital evidence standards
• Direct the National Judicial Academy and State Academies to report on training under the BNSS regime
• Call for structured data on video conferencing facilities in courts and prisons

Separation Of Prosecutors And Investigators

Invoking Sections 18 to 20 BNSS, the amicus has urged strict implementation of separation between investigation and prosecution through operationalisation of Directorates of Prosecution.

Probation Mandate

Courts have also been reminded that where probation is not granted under Section 401 BNSS or the Probation of Offenders Act, reasons must be recorded in writing.

Click here to read the amicus report