Content:
- Language of unity
- A year later — colonial-era laws to new criminal codes
- Revisit digital search powers under the I-T Bill 2025
Language of Unity
Three-Language Policy & NEP 2020
- NEP 2020 mandates that students learn three languages in school.
- It is more flexible than earlier policies, allowing States to choose any two Indian languages and one foreign language.
- Despite flexibility on paper, Hindi is feared to become the default second language after the regional mother tongue.
Relevance : GS 1(Culture) ,GS 2(Governance)
Practice Question : “Uniformity in language policy may undermine India’s linguistic diversity and federal principles.” Critically examine this statement in the context of the NEP 2020 and the three-language formula.(250Words)
Maharashtra Controversy
- Maharashtra govt initially announced Hindi would be taught until Class 5 as a second language.
- This move faced backlash, seen as Hindi imposition, leading to withdrawal of the decision.
- A committee led by Dr. Narendra Jadhav will now review the issue.
Political Dynamics
- Language imposition can spark regional sentiments.
- Ruling government frames the three-language policy as a matter of national pride and unity, but this may backfire.
Ground Realities in Implementation
- Students and parents across India, including in Hindi-speaking states, often prefer English.
- Though 15 languages are offered as third language options in Maharashtra, in practice, few opt for non-mainstream languages.
- Schools face resource constraints—they can’t offer a wide range of language choices.
Critique of Policy Outcomes
- Despite neutral framing, implementation trends show a bias towards Hindi, raising fears of linguistic domination.
- Language associated with political power gains undue influence, which can be divisive.
- The uniformity in policy may erode linguistic diversity and local pride.
Key Message
- National unity cannot be built on linguistic uniformity.
- The Government needs to adopt a more inclusive and flexible approach, respecting regional languages and sentiments.
- The real goal should be pluralism and voluntary adoption, not perceived imposition.
Disclaimer : The views and opinions expressed here are based on the original article published in THE HINDU and do not reflect the official stance of Legacy IAS Academy. This content is provided solely for Academic purposes.
A year later — colonial-era laws to new criminal codes
Overview of Legal Transition
- The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) replaced the IPC, CrPC, and Evidence Act.
- Transition facilitated via CCTNS, enabling smooth FIR registration within States under the new laws.
- Credit for the digital transition goes to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
Relevance : GS 2(Laws , Justice )
Practice Question : Discuss the impact of technological tools like the ‘e-Sakshya’ app in strengthening criminal investigations under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). What are the challenges in its implementation, and how can they be addressed?(250 Words)
Role of ‘e-Sakshya’ App
- Developed by NIC with MHA support for real-time collection and storage of evidence.
- Part of Inter-operable Criminal Justice System (ICJS)—links police, courts, jails, prosecution, FSLs.
- Used for capturing geo-tagged, timestamped photos/videos by Investigating Officers (IOs).
Mandatory Use of Tech in Investigation
- BNSS mandates audio-video documentation of key processes like:
- Search and seizure (Sec 105)
- Search by police (Sec 185)
- Scene of crime videography (Sec 176)
- Statements (Sec 173, 180)
- Custody/disposal of property (Sec 497)
- IOs must take selfies to authenticate their physical presence at crime scenes—reduces delegation malpractice.
Forensics Integration & Challenges
- Mandatory FSL expert visits at crime scenes (Sec 176) now observed.
- Forensic infrastructure expansion is slow; new CFSL & NFSU in Raipur expected to help.
- Use of police dogs adds to crime-scene efficiency.
Implementation Gaps & Issues
- Courts cannot directly access ‘e-Sakshya’ data; IOs submit evidence via pen drives, causing duplication & cost.
- App works only on Android 10+ with 1 GB storage; many IOs forced to use personal phones or limited tablets.
- Storage issues: deletion allowed only in offline (unlinked FIR) mode; online entries are permanent.
- Accused persons reluctant to be recorded electronically during confessions or evidence recovery.
Limitations in Scope & Execution
- Cybercrime evidence needs expert handling and certified cyber labs—many State labs yet to be notified under IT Act.
- Petty thefts (< ₹5000) not cognisable due to vague wording in BNS (Sec 303), while petty organised offences are still booked.
- Video conferencing for witness examination (Sec 530 BNSS) still not widely adopted.
- Post-mortem delays remain a concern; MedLEaPR system being tested to streamline this process.
Need for Review and Support
- Feedback from all States/UTs is crucial to assess ease of implementation and modify laws as needed.
- More funds required for:
- Forensic tools & infrastructure
- Digital equipment for IOs
- Mobile FSL units in each district
Conclusion
- ‘e-Sakshya’ is a potential game-changer, improving transparency, evidence quality, and accountability.
- Yet, without institutional support, tech upgrades, and feedback loops, its full potential cannot be realised.
Disclaimer : The views and opinions expressed here are based on the original article published in THE HINDU and do not reflect the official stance of Legacy IAS Academy. This content is provided solely for Academic purposes.
Revisit digital search powers under the I-T Bill 2025
Proposal Overview
- Finance Minister proposes allowing tax authorities to access individuals’ “virtual digital space” during search and seizure under the Income-Tax Bill, 2025.
- Justification: As financial activity moves online, enforcement must follow.
Relevance : GS 2(Governance , Vigilance)
Practice Question : Discuss the impact of technological tools like the ‘e-Sakshya’ app in strengthening criminal investigations under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). What are the challenges in its implementation, and how can they be addressed?(250 Words)
Existing vs Proposed Powers
- Current powers (Sec 132, IT Act 1961) allow search/seizure of physical spaces like homes, offices, and lockers.
- New provision expands reach to include emails, social media, cloud storage, digital platforms, and “any other similar space”—a vague and open-ended definition.
- Tax authorities may also override device access codes, even in encrypted platforms like WhatsApp.
Privacy & Overreach Concerns
- Proposal blurs the boundary between financial enforcement and personal digital privacy.
- Accessing digital spaces inadvertently affects third parties (e.g., friends, family, contacts).
- Especially risky for professionals (journalists, lawyers) holding sensitive and confidential data.
Lack of Safeguards
- No requirement for prior judicial authorisation or demonstrable “reason to believe”.
- Violates Supreme Court’s proportionality test (Puttaswamy case) which demands:
- Legitimate aim
- Necessity
- Least intrusive means
- Proportionality of the action
- No clear protocol for operationalisation, particularly for encrypted platforms or protected content.
Global Standards Contradicted
- U.S.: Supreme Court in Riley v. California requires warrants to access digital data.
- Canada: Section 8 of the Charter protects against unreasonable search and seizure.
- India: SC has called for protocols on digital device seizure (2023 interim guidelines).
Transparency & Accountability Issues
- The Bill prohibits disclosure of the “reason to believe”—removing transparency.
- Lacks mechanisms for judicial oversight, public accountability, and redress.
Risk of Surveillance State
- Opens doors to unchecked surveillance under the guise of tax compliance.
- Lacks distinction between financial and non-financial data in digital searches.
- Enables mass intrusion without relevance thresholds or individual safeguards.
Recommendations & Way Forward
- Root digital enforcement in legality, proportionality, and transparency.
- Narrow the scope of ‘virtual digital space’ to relevant financial data only.
- Mandate judicial warrants, disclosure of reasons, and create redress mechanisms.
- Select Committee reviewing the Bill must incorporate privacy-protective reforms.
Conclusion
- Digital enforcement is needed but must not come at the cost of fundamental rights.
- The current proposal, in its sweeping form, risks turning compliance into surveillance and governance into overreach.
Disclaimer : The views and opinions expressed here are based on the original article published in THE HINDU and do not reflect the official stance of Legacy IAS Academy. This content is provided solely for Academic purposes.
