The Central government's exercise to bring in the new criminal laws is completely unnecessary and the proposed provisions are problematic, patronising and disturbing, Senior Advocate Rebecca John said recently. .Referring to various sections of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), John said that these provisions have made getting bail much more difficult and has given more powers to the State than the citizens. She referred to Section 187 of the BNSS, which in her opinion can be subjected to tremendous misuse as the police can now seek the custody in a staggered manner.“Earlier a person arrested had to be produced before the magistrate in 24 hours and the magistrate could remand that person in tranches of 15 days. It was made clear that only for the first 15 days the person could be remanded to police custody and after that you have to send him to judicial custody. That has changed now. I have serious reservations and opposition to that change. It gives the police the power to stagger the investigation. What it now does is that police can seek custody even after the initial 15 days period. Police would now always turn and say we have not completed our 15 days custody and oppose bail on that ground. I think this provision can be subjected to tremendous misuse,” John argued. .Parliament passes bills to replace IPC, CrPC, Evidence Act.John was speaking on the topic Navigating Justice: Analyzing the Impact of New Penal Codes on Gender Rights in Our Changing Legal Landscape at an event organised by the Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation in partnership with the Guild of Service. Former Delhi High Court judge, Justice Mukta Gupta also spoke at the discussion..Justice Gupta was of the view that the new laws have taken away the discretion that lay with judges to modulate sentences as per gravity of the offence and role of the accused. “The Indian Penal Code (IPC) would provide for a range of sentences. Like, it would say for the offence under this section, the sentence could be a minimum of three years and up to seven years. The judges could modulate sentences based on the gravity of the offence, circumstances, the role of the accused and keeping the reformative approach in mind. But the language used in new provisions is different. These provisions say that for this particular offence, the sentence is these many years. Now, the tweaking which used to happen is gone.” .Justice Gupta was of the view that the new laws have positive and negative aspects, but a lot will depend on how the executive uses these provisions and how the courts deal with them.“We can say some of the provisions are very good and laudable, but if someone is up to mischief, people can be in a lot of trouble.”John said that the laws have not brought in much qualitative change, and will be a nightmare for lawyers and judges as the placement of the sections have changed.