The Bhartiya Nyaya Samhita (BNS) 2023 introduces provisions addressing “organized crime” at a national level, a significant step forward from the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which lacked any such specialized provisions. However, while the BNS aims to unify offenses related to organized crime, the inclusion of terms like “economic offense” under Section 111 seems to have been done without adequate clarity, leading to potential complications.

Historically, “organized crime” was dealt with through various special laws such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and state-specific laws like the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA), and the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act, 2015 (GCTOCA). These laws provided detailed definitions and harsher punishments for organized crime, addressing issues that the Indian Penal Code did not.

The BNS replicates the definition of “organized crime” from the MCOCA and GCTOCA, both state laws. The MCOCA’s definition is broad, covering activities like violence, intimidation, coercion, or other unlawful means to gain pecuniary benefits or promote insurgency. The GCTOCA expands this further to include crimes like extortion, land grabbing, contract killing, economic offenses, cyber-crimes, gambling rackets, and human trafficking.

Section 111 of the BNS attempts to create an inclusive definition by listing specific offenses such as kidnapping, robbery, vehicle theft, extortion, land grabbing, contract killing, economic offenses, cyber-crimes, trafficking of persons, drugs, weapons, or illicit goods or services, and human trafficking. This definition covers both direct and indirect material benefits, including financial gain by any person or group acting on behalf of or as a member of a syndicate.

While the BNS seeks to create a unified legal framework across India, it leaves several key terms undefined, which complicates its application. For example, offenses like “hawala transactions,” “mass marketing fraud,” “trick theft,” “cyber-crime,” “land grabbing,” and “human trafficking” are included in Section 111 without definitions. In contrast, these terms have been defined under various special acts such as the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, and state-specific laws like the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020.

One critical question is whether courts can rely on these special acts to define the terms left vague by the BNS. Section 2(24) of the BNS attempts to reconcile the provisions of local/special laws with the BNS for offenses punishable with imprisonment of six months or more. However, it excludes “organized crime” from this reconciliation, suggesting the legislature intends for organized crime to be treated separately under the BNS.

Another significant issue is the appropriate forum for trying organized crime cases. The MCOCA and GCTOCA provide for special courts to try these offenses, while the BNS designates the sessions court as the appropriate forum. This could lead to confusion, particularly when offenses previously triable in special courts are now required to be tried in sessions courts.

A further legal dilemma arises in the potential conflict between the BNS and state-specific laws like the MCOCA, which contains a non-obstante clause asserting its precedence over other laws. Traditionally, special laws prevail over general laws, which could undermine the BNS’s goal of unifying organized crime laws.

In conclusion, while the BNS’s attempt to create a unified framework for addressing organized crime is commendable, it falls short in providing clear definitions for key terms and reconciling its provisions with existing special and state laws. To address these ambiguities, amendments should be considered to (a) explicitly incorporate the provisions of relevant local and special laws into the BNS, (b) clearly define the offenses listed in Section 111, and (c) affirm that special laws will prevail in case of any conflict with the BNS.