The New Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (successor of Indian Penal Code, 1860) along with the two other bills, The Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (successor of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) and the Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023 (successor of Indian evidence act) received the president’s assent on 25^th of December 2023. However, the government's action casts serious questions on the motives behind it. The law was tabled in the parliament during the period when 97 MPs were suspended; as a result, any possibility of discussion and debate was eliminated. Since all three of the new laws are perfect replicas of the ones that came before them, the motivation for such an act is nonetheless unclear.

Importantly, section 113 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 adds a new offense called "terrorist act," which has already been explicitly defined by the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). This might lead to an extensive misuse of the law.

The insertion of the terrorist act in the BNS, which is the replica of the terrorist act as mentioned in the UAPA act, is only harming the integrity and effectiveness of the clause mentioned under the UAPA act. By addition of such a clause in the general law would give the superintendent of police the liberty to frame charges under either of the acts, and granting such power to the local police officer would only increase tyranny across the country. Acts of terrorism sometimes entail risks to public order, national security, and social stability in addition to direct physical harm to individuals. The BNS's definition of "terrorism" automatically incorporates the UAPA's term, which does not limit the crime to the body alone. This is ludicrous, though, as terrorism is by its very nature concerned with the aftermath of an act rather than the act itself, and such attacks may target civilians or important infrastructure, or perhaps both.

As said, it's uncertain why the BNS includes a provision for the new charge of the terrorist act. Given that terrorist actions are already covered under the UAPA, a special legislation, why was there a need for duplication? There are serious questions about the reasoning behind this change given how similar the definition of a "terrorist act" is in both legislations. To prevent misunderstandings and guarantee uniform interpretation, the criminal justice system usually strives for accuracy and clarity while crafting laws, according to current criminal law jurisprudence.

There would be dissonance regarding the legislatively intended scope and application of this duplicate definition if it existed in both the BNS and the UAPA. Furthermore, since the parliamentary standing committee on Home Affairs fails to explain such a legislative action, the reasoning behind this repetition becomes increasingly vague and obscure.

The UAPA was passed in response to the extremely specialised and intricate nature of terrorist activity, the requirement that it be addressed by a distinct procedural legislation in order to manage the nuances involved, and the necessity to give specific restrictions that may not be sufficiently addressed by general statutes.

In order to resolve disputes between the general and particular provisions of "conflicting" legislation, the courts have consistently adopted the "rule of harmonious construction." This legal maxim states that the special law's provision must take precedence over the general laws in cases when there appears to be a disagreement between two separate legal provisions.

While the BNS is a general legislation that deals with transgressions in general, the UAPA is a particular law that handles terrorism. Consequently, it contradicts the sense to introduce Section 113 of the BNS when the UAPA will apply instead.

Assuming that members of Group A are seen as opposing the ideology of the government, the SP may selectively book them under the UAPA and use its strict rules to keep them detained, while the other group may be charged under BNS. This gives rise to the possibility of manipulating the legal system for political purposes.

Fairness in judicial procedures and equality before the law is directly threatened by the possibility of discriminatory treatment motivated by ideological differences. The possible abuse of these authorities may lead to the elimination of basic rights and the silence of dissident voices.

In turn, a strong system for accountability, supervision, and adherence to legal standards is required due to the incorporation of anti-terrorism provisions into general legislation and the discretionary powers bestowed upon the Superintendent of police. To guarantee the fair and reasonable application of anti-terrorism legislation and avoid their exploitation for political goals, it becomes crucial to strike a careful balance between the imperatives of national security and protecting individual rights.

The investigation's course is decided by the SP's choice to file a case under the BNS or the UAPA. In addition, the state police may knowingly or unknowingly record the case under the BNS to maintain jurisdictional control and stop the matter from being referred to the Union government. Ego-driven resistance to turning over a case to the NIA in situations where the state and Union administrations have different political philosophies might make it more difficult to combat terrorism.

This situation presents a serious difficulty that might impede the established legal procedure. The probability of applying anti-terrorism legislation selectively due to political concerns poses a threat to the values of justice equity and the rule of law.

It is interesting to observe that in places where the state and federal administrations have similar political philosophies or connections, this problem might not be as severe. However, the possibility of abuse of discretion in the execution of anti-terrorism laws necessitates close examination in areas characterised by political disagreement.

The New Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (successor of Indian Penal Code, 1860) along with the two other bills, The Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (successor of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) and the Bhartiya Sakshya Bill, 2023 (successor of Indian evidence act) received the president’s assent on 25^th of December 2023. However, the government's action casts serious questions on the motives behind it. The law was tabled in the parliament during the period when 97 MPs were suspended; as a result, any possibility of discussion and debate was eliminated. Since all three of the new laws are perfect replicas of the ones that came before them, the motivation for such an act is nonetheless unclear.

Importantly, section 113 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 adds a new offense called "terrorist act," which has already been explicitly defined by the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). This might lead to an extensive misuse of the law.

The insertion of the terrorist act in the BNS, which is the replica of the terrorist act as mentioned in the UAPA act, is only harming the integrity and effectiveness of the clause mentioned under the UAPA act. By addition of such a clause in the general law would give the superintendent of police the liberty to frame charges under either of the acts, and granting such power to the local police officer would only increase tyranny across the country. Acts of terrorism sometimes entail risks to public order, national security, and social stability in addition to direct physical harm to individuals. The BNS's definition of "terrorism" automatically incorporates the UAPA's term, which does not limit the crime to the body alone. This is ludicrous, though, as terrorism is by its very nature concerned with the aftermath of an act rather than the act itself, and such attacks may target civilians or important infrastructure, or perhaps both.

As said, it's uncertain why the BNS includes a provision for the new charge of the terrorist act. Given that terrorist actions are already covered under the UAPA, a special legislation, why was there a need for duplication? There are serious questions about the reasoning behind this change given how similar the definition of a "terrorist act" is in both legislations. To prevent misunderstandings and guarantee uniform interpretation, the criminal justice system usually strives for accuracy and clarity while crafting laws, according to current criminal law jurisprudence.

There would be dissonance regarding the legislatively intended scope and application of this duplicate definition if it existed in both the BNS and the UAPA. Furthermore, since the parliamentary standing committee on Home Affairs fails to explain such a legislative action, the reasoning behind this repetition becomes increasingly vague and obscure.

The UAPA was passed in response to the extremely specialised and intricate nature of terrorist activity, the requirement that it be addressed by a distinct procedural legislation in order to manage the nuances involved, and the necessity to give specific restrictions that may not be sufficiently addressed by general statutes.

In order to resolve disputes between the general and particular provisions of "conflicting" legislation, the courts have consistently adopted the "rule of harmonious construction." This legal maxim states that the special law's provision must take precedence over the general laws in cases when there appears to be a disagreement between two separate legal provisions.

While the BNS is a general legislation that deals with transgressions in general, the UAPA is a particular law that handles terrorism. Consequently, it contradicts the sense to introduce Section 113 of the BNS when the UAPA will apply instead.

Assuming that members of Group A are seen as opposing the ideology of the government, the SP may selectively book them under the UAPA and use its strict rules to keep them detained, while the other group may be charged under BNS. This gives rise to the possibility of manipulating the legal system for political purposes.

Fairness in judicial procedures and equality before the law is directly threatened by the possibility of discriminatory treatment motivated by ideological differences. The possible abuse of these authorities may lead to the elimination of basic rights and the silence of dissident voices.

In turn, a strong system for accountability, supervision, and adherence to legal standards is required due to the incorporation of anti-terrorism provisions into general legislation and the discretionary powers bestowed upon the Superintendent of police. To guarantee the fair and reasonable application of anti-terrorism legislation and avoid their exploitation for political goals, it becomes crucial to strike a careful balance between the imperatives of national security and protecting individual rights.

The investigation's course is decided by the SP's choice to file a case under the BNS or the UAPA. In addition, the state police may knowingly or unknowingly record the case under the BNS to maintain jurisdictional control and stop the matter from being referred to the Union government. Ego-driven resistance to turning over a case to the NIA in situations where the state and Union administrations have different political philosophies might make it more difficult to combat terrorism.

This situation presents a serious difficulty that might impede the established legal procedure. The probability of applying anti-terrorism legislation selectively due to political concerns poses a threat to the values of justice equity and the rule of law.

It is interesting to observe that in places where the state and federal administrations have similar political philosophies or connections, this problem might not be as severe. However, the possibility of abuse of discretion in the execution of anti-terrorism laws necessitates close examination in areas characterised by political disagreement.