Every Diwali, most of the Indian families adorn their walls in the spirit of welcoming the new year, homes are renewed with colour and light. Yet, a deeper irony remains out there in our legal system which still carries the paint of colonial rule. As of 2025, approximately 780 acts are still in force, out of which 66 acts date back to before 1947. Even after more than seven decades of India’s independence as a republic nation, these colonial laws continue to exist. Their persistence underscores the urgent need for a comprehensive overhaul of the legal framework, because time changes and so does, the needs.
Three new criminal laws made up, that is Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), displaced the existing Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), and the Indian Evidence Act. These new laws were manifested to solve problems like infrastructure, laws being punishment centric, over-stretched trials, pendency, gaps and elongated investigations, overcrowded prisons with under-trial prisoners and filled the need of technological advancements. These new legislation is not a distinct set of laws but merely an amendment, addition, or removal of the existing ones.
I do know two friends, if they were part of framing laws for independent India, they would completely have a different perspective. One carries strong pride that they won’t even use someone else’s pen, so adopting laws made by colonial rulers would be unacceptable to him. For him, real independence means creating our own laws, free from any borrowed past. The other sees it differently. She believe that although the British exploited India, not everything they left behind is useless. If a law still works, its origin shouldn’t matter. Supporting this by pointing out that India, the world’s largest democracy, still uses several colonial-era laws, proving their practicality. To me, both perspectives matter one protects emotional and ideological freedom, the other values practicality. Together, they reflect the balance of what India continues to walk between its past and future.
However, which category arises when the same rules are manipulated and renamed solely for the purpose of establishing our own laws?
In fact, the new BNS has undergone significant revisions to the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Out of the 511 provisions originally present in the IPC, only 24 sections have been deleted, while 23 new sections have been incorporated. Additionally, approximately 95% of theCRPC, has been cut, copied, and pasted as the new BNSS. If there was only a need for amendments, did the government intend to adopt a Sanskrit name and demonstrate something, or were they attempting to foster a sense of pride?
The recent changes have garbed significant attention, but we also need to pin-point the aspects that have remained unchanged and their implications. It is essential to discern whether the colonial legacy continues to hold relevance in contemporary India or if it represents a mere error.
One of the most striking and disturbing examples lies in the continued legal impunity around marital rape. The marital rape exception in Indian law previously carved into Exception 2 of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which presumed that by entering marriage, a woman gave irrevocable consent to sexual intercourse for life time 24/7. This idea was not rooted in Indian legal philosophy, constitutional morality, or even social necessity it was a borrowed patriarchal fiction that travelled through colonial rule into post-independence criminal law.
The irony is sharp. When England itself discarded the rule in 1991 in R v. R, recognising that marriage cannot erase a woman’s autonomy or bodily agency. India, on the other hand, despite rewriting, renaming, and renovative presenting its criminal laws, continues to retain this very exception under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Where the new laws claim to modernise investigation through digital evidence, expand protection against mob violence, and reform archaic terminology, they remain selectively silent on recognising non-consensual sex within marriage as rape.
The law seems to be modernising quite quickly when it comes to technology, policing, and national security. But when it comes to a woman’s right to sexual autonomy, it’s a bit more hesitant and unsure. If changing “Indian Penal Code” to “Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita” signals autonomy, what does retaining the colonial marital rape exception signal continuity, convenience, or conscious choice?
The Constitution promises dignity, equality, and personal liberty, yet criminal law continues to deny married women the full legal right to say “No” .
Thus, the debate shifts from what laws are renamed to what mindsets remain unchanged. Colonialism isn’t just about the old laws and rules. It’s also about the things we don’t say or do anymore, but that still happen. And one of the biggest things is that we keep normalising sexual violence in marriage. It’s not just about whether colonial law still exists; it’s about who it’s still hurting.
Comments