THE STATE OF THE SYSTEM

Without good data, there can be no good questions.

In April 2022, we set out to plug the severe dearth of information about the extent of criminalisation in India. Two years later, The State of the System was born. It is an ongoing knowledge creation project. Currently, it is a database of all crimes across all central laws of India. Soon, we will be expanding it to also encompass state laws.

Background and Context

The Crime & Punishment team at Vidhi has been studying India’s criminal justice system (CJS) in depth. Over the past few years, our research has included examining the working of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in Punjab and Mumbai, the CJS’s role in addressing crimes against women, and the government's use of criminal law during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Through this work, we have observed a troubling pattern: criminal law is often misapplied to address social, health, and governance issues. This misapplication of criminal law has not only marginalised vulnerable groups, such as drug users and victims of gender-based violence, but also created a system where governance is over reliant on criminalisation.

While the government has taken steps to address this by decriminalising certain laws, the approach has been narrow, sporadic and ad-hoc, rather than addressing the broader misuse of criminal law.
Research Objective

Our objective is to understand the scope and extent of criminalisation in India and document the wide range of actions and omissions that are classified as criminal offences under Indian laws. We undertake this with a broader aim of exploring what Indian law deems worthy of criminalisation and assessing whether it aligns with the views of 21st-century modern India. Additionally, we aim to provide research and conceptual impetus to the ongoing decriminalisation efforts towards improving ease of living and ease of doing business. Through this work, we seek to lay the groundwork for a much-needed conversation about reimagining crime and punishment in a modern India.
Data Collection

To achieve this, we first identified all the central laws that were operational in India at the time of the data collection in 2022. We used IndiaCode, a comprehensive database of central laws, to compile a dataset of 932 laws. These laws govern various areas, such as commerce, banking, education, health, family welfare, social welfare, taxation, criminal justice etc.
Data Extraction and Classification
1. Identifying laws that have crimes : Next, we sought to identify which of these laws provided for criminal offences i.e actions or omissions that are punishable by law. For ease of reference, we have referred to all such actions and omissions as “crimes” in our database. We began by analysing a subset of these laws to identify common legal phrases used to define crimes and prescribe punishments. Phrases such as ‘shall be punishable with’, ‘shall be liable to suffer’, ‘shall, on conviction’, ‘shall for first contravention be punishable with’ are commonly used to prescribe punishments. These served as keywords for our extraction. With the assistance of a data scientist, we applied these keywords to our database of 932 laws, through which we identified 420 laws with at least one of these phrases. For each of these laws, we extracted the provisions (sections and sub- sections) that included these phrases.
2. Identifying and differentiating crimes from civil wrongs : After extracting the relevant provisions under the 420 laws, we refined the database to focus exclusively on crimes. We excluded provisions that prescribed non-criminal sanctions such as monetary penalties, confiscation of goods, and cancellation or suspension of licences etc.
  
  For instance, the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in Section 125 prescribes that ‘Any person, who contravenes any of the provisions of this Act (…..) shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees.’ While the provision was extracted during the initial keyword-based extraction due to the phrase “shall be liable to”, it was excluded from the final database as it prescribes a civil penalty imposable by the Commissioner or any officer appointed by the Commissioner.
  
  Where ambiguities existed, such as in the interchangeable usage of the terms ‘fine’ and ‘penalty’, provisions were read in context of the complete law to make the distinction between crimes and civil wrongs.
  
  Across laws relating to the defence of India and armed forces, criminal provisions ordinarily allow the court martial to impose any lesser punishment imposable under the law, without clearly specifying the form and duration. In all such cases, we have omitted to document the phrase “or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned” owing to the lack of specificity.
  
  Further, during our research (2022 to 2024), the number of laws in our database changed due to various legislative developments. For instance, the Parliament enacted the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023, which decriminalised several laws such as the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and repealed some such as the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Act, 1978. Additionally, some new laws were enacted such as the National Dental Commission Act, 2023 and the Press and Registration of Periodicals Act, 2023, further impacting the total count.
  
  Following the exclusions and additions, the database was refined to include 370 laws defining and punishing crimes as of December 1, 2024.
3. Classification of Laws : To better understand the extent of criminalisation, we categorised these 370 laws on the basis of the subject matter they govern. This was done following the methodology adopted by the Law Commission of India in its 248th Report, which categorised all central laws into 49 subject matter categories. To identify relevant categories for each law, the Law Commission employed the ‘title method’ from the United States Code and the subject classification from the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
  
  For laws enacted up to 2014, we used the categorisation provided in the Law Commission’s report. For laws enacted after 2014, we applied the same methodology as the Law Commission to maintain consistency.
Simplification of Laws
1. Breaking down provisions into specific actions and omissions criminalised
  
  The next step involved identifying individual crimes within the extracted provisions. Often, a single provision is drafted in a way that it criminalises multiple actions and omissions, presenting them collectively within the same text. A preliminary reading of such provision can make it challenging to understand the details of each action and omission criminalised which limits an accurate understanding of the scope and extent of criminalisation. To address this, we deconstructed the provisions by breaking them down into individual actions and omissions criminalised.
  
  For further clarity and to avoid unnecessarily inflating the number of crimes in the database, we have grouped together crimes that are similar in nature.
  
  Conversely, those fundamentally different in nature have been separated, regardless of whether they were criminalised under the same or different provisions. Due to this, the number of crimes documented in the database are significantly more than the number of criminalising provisions in the laws.
2. Cross-referencing laws and provisions
  1. Reference to different provisions within the same law : Many laws define crimes and their corresponding punishments in separate provisions. In such cases, the punishment provision typically refers back to the definition, requiring both to be read together. Some laws include a single punishment provision that applies to multiple crimes defined across the law. Additionally, there are instances where an action is detailed in a definition provision, but the provision that criminalises it is separate. In all these situations, the provisions are cross-referenced, read together, and documented accordingly.
  2. Reference to provisions under different laws : Some laws also contain criminal provisions that reference provisions under other laws. For instance, Section 44 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, which criminalises bigamy, refers to Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, to prescribe the punishment for the offence. In such cases, we have cross-referenced the provisions mentioned in the criminalising provision.
3. Omnibus provisions criminalising non-compliance with any provision
  
  Certain laws include general and omnibus provisions that criminalise the contravention of any provision of the law, effectively making non-compliance with any requirement a crime. For instance, Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, imposes punishments, including imprisonment and fines, on occupiers and managers for violations of the Act's provisions or rules. In such cases, we have documented only the general provision rather than identifying each specific instance of non-compliance or contravention that is criminalised.
  
  We, however, did analyse all the non-compliances that Section 92 of the Factories Act criminalises, which amount to 111 distinct crimes. A similar analysis for other general and omnibus provisions in other laws would significantly increase the number of crimes within each law.
4. Simplifying the language
  
  The next step involved simplifying the extracted provisions, which are often written in complex legal language. We manually examined each provision, rewriting them in simpler terms that identified specific actions and omissions that were criminalised
Punishments

After identifying all the crimes, we documented the punishments prescribed for each of these crimes.
1. Rules to ensure consistency in documenting punishments
  
  To maintain consistency across the database, the following approach was followed:
  - Term of imprisonment : We documented both the maximum and minimum terms of imprisonment prescribed for each crime. Terms stated in months were converted into years for uniformity (e.g., a maximum imprisonment of three months was recorded as 0.25 years). However, terms expressed in days were recorded as it is.
  - Form of Imprisonment : The prescribed form of imprisonment (simple, rigorous, or either) was also documented. Where no form was specified, we recorded it as “not specified”.
  - Maximum and minimum amount of fine : We recorded the maximum and minimum fines prescribed for each crime. If no specific amount was mentioned but a fine was included as a possible punishment, it was noted as “Yes” to indicate that a fine can be prescribed.
  - Life Imprisonment : For crimes where life imprisonment was explicitly prescribed, it was recorded as ‘Yes.’
  - Death : Crimes where the death penalty was prescribed were marked as “Yes.”
  - Judicial discretion to choose between punishments : We also documented whether judges had the discretion to choose between imposition of fine and imprisonment. Where the law prescribed both imprisonment and fine, it was recorded as ‘No’, indicating that both punishments are to be mandatorily granted upon conviction. In cases where the law provided for imprisonment or fine, it was recorded as ‘Yes’, indicating that judges could choose between the two. Where the law provided for only imprisonment or only fine, it was also recorded as ‘No’.
2. Attempt, Abetment, Subsequent Crimes and Conspiracy
  
  We also documented punishments for attempt, abetment, second/subsequent crimes, and conspiracy. These were not recorded as separate crimes. Instead, they were documented alongside the punishments for the primary crimes.
  
  For instance, under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012:
  - Section 21(1) states that ‘Any person, who fails to report the commission of an offence (....) or who fails to record such offence (...) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description which may extend to six months or with fine or with both.
  - Section 17 of the same Act states ‘Whoever abets any offence under this Act, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, shall be punished with punishment provided for that offence’.
  In this case, the punishment for abetment was documented along with the punishment for the primary crime under Section 21(1). The same approach was adopted for attempts, second and subsequent commission, and continuing commission of crimes.
  
  There were also some instances where laws prescribed different punishments for abetment depending on whether the crime was committed or not. Wherever such a distinction existed, it was documented as such. In cases where no such distinction was made, the same punishment for abetment was recorded under both categories.
  
  The offence of wilfully aiding a crime has been treated as similar to that of abetment when both are under a common provision. Abetment, as defined by Section 45 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 includes intentionally aiding, instigating, engaging with other persons in a conspiracy for doing the thing, etc. For the purposes of this database, punishment for wilful aiding has been recorded alongside that for abetment. Similarly, the punishment for preparing to commit a crime has been recorded along with that for attempting to commit said crime.
3. Crimes committed by companies, public servants etc.
  
  Certain laws prescribed different punishments for the same crime depending on whether it is committed by an individual, a company, or a public servant. We have not recorded these as separate crimes since the action or omission being criminalised remains the same. Instead, this distinction was documented in the punishment section of the database, detailing the specific nature and term of punishment applicable when the offence is committed by a company, public servant, or any other entity.
4. Crime resulting in different harms
  
  Where an act or omission is punished differently based on the type of harm it causes, it has been treated and documented as separate crimes based on each type of harm caused.
Exclusions

Certain provisions have been deliberately excluded from the ambit of our database, so as to ensure consistency and to provide an accurate representation of the state of our system. These exclusions are:
1. Provisions that allow rules, schemes or policies to prescribe crimes.
  
  Some provisions allow rules, schemes or policies formulated under the law to define and punish crimes. For instance, Section 16(2) of The Seamens Provident Fund Act, 1966 states that ‘The Scheme may provide that any person who contravenes, or makes default in complying with any of the provisions thereof shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.’ This provision does not define a crime, but merely enables the Seamen’s Provident Fund Scheme to do so.
  
  Similarly, Section 3(3) of The Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 states that ‘Rules made under this section may provide that any contravention thereof or of any order issued under the authority of any such rule shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees, or with both.’ This provision enables the Central Government to make Rules under this Act, and to criminalise contraventions of the Rules, but does not independently criminalise such contravention.
2. Crimes created through State–level amendments to Central laws.
  
  Some central laws have been amended by States to alter existing crimes or create new ones. Such state-specific crimes have not been included in our database, as they are applicable only within the jurisdiction of the respective State and not at the central level.
  
  For example, the Societies Registration Act, 1860, as enacted by the parliament, contains no crimes. However, some states have criminalised certain compliances by way of amendments to this law. For example Odisha has criminalised failing to share the required documents with the Registrar on time (Section 4). Similarly, Haryana has criminalised failing to produce any books of accounts or other records as required by the Act (Section 26). Since these amendments are State-specific, this Act is not included in our database.
3. Explanations and exceptions
  
  We have excluded provisions from our database that merely provide definitions or explanations clarifying how specific words or phrases should be understood. We have excluded provisos and sub-sections that outline exceptions or defences to the crime. For example, a provision criminalising omissions by a company might include an explanation stating that ‘company’ shall also include trusts or societies. Such explanations have not been included in our database.
  
  However, we have accounted for explanations that define the scope of a crime. For example, Explanation 4 to Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, which provides an exhaustive list of laws constituting disrespect to the National Flag, has been included in the database.
Final Output

Through this process, we have created a comprehensive database of crimes across central laws in India, broken down into clear, simplified terms. This database includes detailed information on crimes and the range of punishments, providing a clear and accessible understanding of the scope of criminal law in India.

Limitations

While this database aims to provide a thorough mapping of all crimes under central laws, we must acknowledge a few limitations in creating this resource. Extracting relevant provisions was done working with a data scientist and using a series of keywords identified by analysing legal phrasing. Potential flaws in the technical processes involved in this may have led to occasional missed data.

Multiple researchers over a period of two years have contributed to identifying, simplifying and categorising the crimes. Despite attempts at a uniform approach, individual interpretations and sensibilities may vary, which could impact the categorisation and phrasing across entries. Additionally, the simplification of legal language inevitably leads to some nuances being lost. These nuances may be sought in the Bare Acts on IndiaCode.

Finally, deliberate exclusions, such as enabling provisions, state amendments, and non-criminal penalties, were necessary for focus and clarity but mean that the database may not fully encapsulate every criminalised action.

Example 1: The Architects Act, 1972 in Section 36 bears the title ‘Penalty for falsely claiming to be registered’, but the text of the provision reads, ‘(...) shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees’. Section 39, providing for cognizance of offences clarified that offences punishable under the Act shall be tried by a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class. This contextual reading confirmed that the provision refers to a crime, not a civil wrong.

Example 2: The Boilers Act, 1923, Section 22 reads 'Any owner of a boiler who refuses or without reasonable excuse neglects—

(i) to surrender a provisional order as required by section 9, or
(ii) to produce a certificate or provisional order when duly called upon to do so under section 15, or
(iii) to make over to the new owner of a boiler a certificate or provisional order as required by Section 16; or
(iv) to report an accident to a boiler or boiler component when so required under Section 18, shall be liable to penalty which may extend to 6 five thousand rupees. Section 26A(1) of the Act provides for Adjudication and reads as 'The State Government or the Union territory administration, as the case may be, for the purposes of determining the penalties under sections 22, 23, sub-section (1) of section 25 and section 30, may authorise the District Magistrate or the Additional District Magistrate, as the case may be, having jurisdiction, to be the adjudicating officer to hold an inquiry and impose penalty, in the manner as may be prescribed by the State Government or the Central Government, as the case may be. A combined reading of the two sections shows that the act is a civil wrong with a civil penalty.

Identification of Individual Crimes

Provision and Law	Text	Crime(s) identified
Section 29(1), The Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961.	Whoever obstructs an inspector in the discharge of his duties under this Act or refuses or wilfully neglects to afford the inspector any reasonable facility for making any inspection, examination or inquiry authorised by or under this Act in relation to any motor transport undertaking shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.	Obstructing an inspector in the discharge of their duties under this Act. Refusing or wilfully neglecting to afford the inspector any reasonable facility for making any authorised inspection, examination or inquiry.
Section 6, The Indian Tolls Act, 1851.	Every person, other than the persons appointed to collect the tolls under this Act, who shall levy or demand any toll on any public road or bridge, or for passing through any bazar situated thereon, and also every person who shall unlawfully and extortionately demand, or take any other or higher toll than the lawful toll, or under colour of this Act seize or sell any property knowing such seizure or sale to be to lawful, or in any manner unlawfully extort money or any valuable thing from any person under colour of this Act, shall be liable on conviction before a Magistrate to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six calendar months, or to fine not exceeding two hundred rupees, any part of which fine may be awarded by the Magistrate to the person aggrieved; but this remedy shall not be deemed to bar or affect his right to have redress by suit in the Civil Court.	Levying or demanding any toll on any public road or bridge, or for passing through any bazar, when not appointed to do so. Demanding or taking or extorting higher toll than the lawful toll. Seizing or selling any property knowing such seizure or sale to be unlawful under this Act. Unlawfully extorting money or any valuable thing from any person in any manner under this Act.
Provisions with multiple sub- sections
Section 124, The Delhi Police Act, 1978	Any police officer who- (a) without lawful authority or reasonable cause enters or searches, or causes to be entered or searched, any building, vessel, tent or place; or (b) vexatiously and unnecessarily seizes the property of any person; or (c) vexatiously and unnecessarily detains, searches or arrests any person; or (d) offers any unnecessary personal violence to any person in his custody; or (e) holds out any threat or promise not warranted by law, shall, for every such offence, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.	Entering, searching or causing to be entered or searched any building, vessel, tent or place as a police officer, without lawful authority or reasonable cause. Vexatiously and unnecessarily seizing the property of any person as a police officer. Vexatiously and unnecessarily detaining, searching or arresting any person as a police officer. Offering any unnecessary personal violence to any person in one's custody as a police officer. Holding out any threat or promise not warranted by law as a police officer.
Section 7, The Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes (Production, Manufacture, Import, Export, Transport, Sale, Distribution, Storage and Advertisement) Act, 2019.	7. Punishment for contravention of section 4- Whoever contravenes the provisions of section 4, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both, and, for the second or subsequent offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees. 4. Prohibition on production, manufacturing, import, export, transport, sale, distribution, advertisement of electronic cigarettes.—On and from the date of commencement of this Act, no person shall, directly or indirectly,— (i) produce or manufacture or import or export or transport or sell or distribute electronic cigarettes, whether as a complete product or any part thereof; and (ii) advertise electronic cigarettes or take part in any advertisement that directly or indirectly promotes the use of electronic cigarettes.	Section 7 r/w Section 4(i): Producing or manufacturing electronic cigarettes. Importing or exporting electronic cigarettes. Transporting or distributing electronic cigarettes. Selling electronic cigarettes. Section 7 r/w Section 4(ii): Advertising electronic cigarettes or taking part in an advertisement promoting their use.

Identification of Individual Crimes

Provision and Law	Text	Crime(s) identified
Section 12, The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971	12. Punishment for contempt of court.— (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both. 2(b). “civil contempt” means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. 2(c). “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which— (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.	Section 12(1) r/w Section 2(b): Committing civil contempt of court by wilfully disobeying any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court. Section 12(1) r/w Section 2(b): Committing civil contempt of court by wilfully breaching an undertaking given to a court. Section 12(1) r/w Section 2(c): Committing criminal contempt by publishing any matter which scandalises or lowers the authority of any court, interferes with due course of any judicial proceeding, or obstructs the administration of justice. Section 12(1) r/w Section 2(c): Committing criminal contempt by doing any act which scandalises or lowers the authority of any court, interferes with due course of any judicial proceeding, or obstructs the administration of justice.
Section 36, The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013	26. Penalty for non-compliance with provisions of Act.—(1) Where the employer fails to— (a) constitute an Internal Committee under sub-section (1) of section 4; (b) take action under sections 13, 14 and 22; and (c) contravenes or attempts to contravene or abets contravention of other provisions of this Act or any rules made thereunder, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees.	Section 26(1)(a) r/w Section 4: Failing as an employer to constitute an Internal Complaints Committee. Section 26(1)(b) r/w Section 13: Failing as an employer to take action after an inquiry report as recommended by the Internal Committee or the Local Committee. Section 26(1)(b) r/w Section 14: Failing as an employer to take action recommended by the Internal Committee or the Local Committee for punishment against false or malicious complaint and false evidence. Section 26(1)(b) r/w Section 22: Failing as an employer to include in its report the number of cases filed, if any, and their disposal under this Act. Section 26(1)(c): Contravening or attempting to contravene any other provisions under the Act or any rules made thereunder.

This dataset is the result of two years of consistent effort, involving data extraction, simplification, cross-referencing, detailed reviews, and constant updation. It has been made possible through the collective efforts of multiple researchers and the dedicated support of several interns. The core team involved in building this dataset are:

Naveed Mehmood Ahmad

Team Lead & Senior Resident Fellow

Neha Singhal

Senior Associate Fellow

Ayushi Sharma

Senior Resident Fellow

Sriyanshi Bhatt

Research Fellow

Aashna Mansata

Research Fellow

Ishaan Bamba

Research Fellow

Aayush Mallik

Former Project Fellow

Samyak

Data Scientist

We extend our gratitude to the following people whose support and contributions have been instrumental to developing this resource and bringing the team’s vision to fruition.

Aparna Shukla

Kritika Mishra

Aashi Goyal

Megha Nautiyal

Arunima Swaroop

Shivam Jadaun

Iqra Khan

Ritesh Raj

Jisha Garg

Tajamul Islam

Tusharika Vig

COLLAPSE INTRO

‘Laws’

For the purposes of this data set, “law” refers to Acts enacted by the Central legislature. This definition also includes laws that, although applicable only to a specific state or jurisdiction, have been passed by Parliament rather than the state legislature.
It does not include Ordinances, Regulations, Rules, Orders, Bye-laws, or any other instrument that is not an Act but may be considered as law.

'Subject Matter Categories'

Subject Matter classification refers to the categorisation of laws based on their area of regulation. Each category represents a specific area governed by the law, such as public health, labour, social welfare, or environmental protection.

Browse Acts

COMMON CATEGORIES

Labour Laws

Criminal Justice

Financial Laws

Defence of India and Armed Forces

Defence of India ...

Public Health

Taxes, Tolls & Cess Laws

Taxes, Tolls & Ce...

Transportation and Infrastructure

Transportation an...

Nationalisation

Legal, Medical and Other Professions

Legal, Medical an...

Women and Child Development

Women and Child D...

Trade and Commerce

Trade and Commerc...

Environmental Law

Environmental Law...

See all categories

BETA, THE A.I. ASSISTANT

Beta (’son’, as in ‘son, hand me that file’) is merely a keeper of the information. He’ll fetch you what you need. He might sometimes have a lesser comprehension of this complex data than you, but he’ll still try to be helpful. Beta is currently in beta mode, equipped to fetch relevant information from this database. He will soon have AI-powered functionalities to make your search experience smarter and faster.

Try Beta. You can prompt him to (...)

FACT GRAB

370

laws criminalise conduct

7305

crimes are punishable

301

crimes are punished with death

5333

crimes are punished with imprisonment

433

crimes are punished with life imprisonment

5842

crimes are punished with fines

crimes are punished with community service

Did You Know?

More than 75% of all crimes are defined under laws that regulate areas beyond core criminal justice, such as shipping, taxation, financial institutions, and municipal governance.

Imprisonment is the one of most relied upon forms of punishment across laws, with 73% of crimes punishable by jail terms ranging from one day to 20 years. In contrast, community service, touted as a modern, justice-centric alternative, is prescribed for only eight crimes.

More than 2,000 crimes are punishable by imprisonment of up to five years or more. 983 crimes attract a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, with 106 crimes mandating a minimum of 10 years and 44 mandating a minimum of 20 years.

Failing to file property tax returns on time, not providing sufficient exercise to a pet dog, distributing feeding bottles, and failing to notify a treasure valuing Rs. 10, are all crimes in Indian law.

TOWARDS DECRIMINALISATION *

402

crimes decriminalised

292

provisions affected

laws amended

* since 2022

Laws