India’s New Criminal Laws Expand Police Powers Amid Protests

A Nation in Transition

India stands at a pivotal point in its legal and social journey, as Parliament enacts sweeping reforms to its criminal laws four decades after independence. The newly passed criminal codes have drawn sharp reaction from the public and civil society, especially in regions where protests are ongoing and citizens already feel vulnerable. These new laws, meant to replace colonial-era regulations with modern codes, promise speedier justice and streamlined investigations. Yet, as the country debates their real-world effects, thousands of voices rise in concern: have the changes gone too far in empowering police and authorities at the cost of basic freedoms and rights?

This article explores how these new criminal laws impact police powers during protests and unrest, focusing on Ladakh and Manipur, two regions where law and order confront identity, human rights, and long-standing aspirations for autonomy.

What Are the New Criminal Laws?

India’s move to enact three new codes—the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)—was hailed by the government as a giant leap towards decolonizing Indian justice. The government says the new laws close loopholes, define new offences, and prioritize victims’ rights in investigations. At their core, these codes replace sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, and the Evidence Act, sweeping away laws that had stood since British rule.

Yet, lawyers and critics warn that several provisions risk misuse by authorities. The new codes allow police to detain suspects for longer, investigate more “offences against the state,” and pursue cases even if the accused is not present. Definitions for “false information,” “acts endangering sovereignty,” and “terrorist activities” have been broadened further, raising fears that peaceful expressions of dissent, journalism, or activism could be criminalized.

“Police were meant to protect citizens, not control them through fear. Expanded detention powers risk misuse, and minorities will be most affected.”
— Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia Director, Human Rights Watch

New trial procedures permit prosecution in absentia, raising concerns over justice for those unable to appear in court whether due to displacement, illness, or intimidation.

“Justice must be quick but also fair. Speeding up cases while curtailing individual liberties is not a solution—judicial oversight and public accountability must be preserved.”
— Priya Sharma, Delhi-based legal scholar

Ladakh: Police Firing and the Struggle for Statehood

Ladakh, a region carved out of Jammu and Kashmir in 2019, stands today at the center of turmoil. Since the removal of Article 370 and its conversion into a union territory, Ladakh’s citizens have feared loss of identity, jobs, and land. Political parties, civil society groups, and youth leaders have campaigned for restoration of full statehood and constitutional safeguards to protect regional resources.

In September 2025, peaceful protests for statehood escalated in Leh as a huge crowd gathered with banners demanding jobs, autonomy, and honest representation in Parliament. Videos circulated online showed local police using tear gas and, tragically, live ammunition, resulting in four deaths and dozens of injuries. Businesses closed, families sheltered indoors, and activists were detained under the newly expanded police powers, some without immediate recourse to legal aid.

“We are only asking for our voices to be heard and our jobs and land to be protected. Curfews and police action have left entire families afraid.”
— Tsewang Namgyal, Leh resident and protestor

Local leader Sonam Wangchuk, known for his environmental and educational initiatives, was accused of incitement. He rejected allegations, arguing the state’s youth were frustrated by broken promises, not violence.

“The new laws have made it even harder for people like us to speak out without fear. We want reforms, but not at the cost of our rights.”
— Sonam Wangchuk, Ladakh activist and educationist

The police, meanwhile, defended their actions as a response to attacks on government buildings. International observers, however, and many Ladakh citizens condemned the use of force as excessive, spreading trauma and fear far beyond the streets of Leh.

Manipur: Ethnic Violence, Mass Displacement, and Legal Uncertainty

Manipur, in India’s Northeast, has endured ethnic clashes since May 2023. Tensions between largely Hindu Meiteis and Christian Kuki-Zo communities have erupted repeatedly, with deadly consequences. Over 260 have been killed in two years, and more than 60,000 people—many children—have lost their homes and now live in government-run relief camps.

This violence has amplified scrutiny of the government’s response to civil unrest and its new policing powers. Residents accuse the state administration and police of partiality; some relief camp volunteers and survivors believe the authorities favor one group over another based on political affiliations. Many stories detail homes burned, crops destroyed, and basic supplies cut off, forcing desperate migrations across army buffer zones. Internet shutdowns have become common, isolating displaced persons and restricting outside aid.

“We lost our homes to violence and now must live under constant surveillance. The government’s promises of protection feel hollow when police powers keep expanding.”
— Thangminlen Kipgen, Manipur community volunteer

Government officials contend that law and order must be restored before reconciliation or relief is possible. Yet critics argue the new laws make it easier to label protest or complaint as “acts against sovereignty,” risking further marginalization of Manipur’s vulnerable populations.

A Meitei community leader explained, “Trust in authorities is at its lowest. Every curfew and raid deepens the divide, not healing it.” These words echo in relief camps where families fear that the expanded authority under new codes may silence survivors and activists who challenge the state’s narrative.

Civil Liberties: Crackdowns Expand Nationwide

Concerns about the use and misuse of new police powers are not limited to Ladakh or Manipur. Across the country, journalists, NGOs, and activists encounter increasing legal threats. The Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA), regulating foreign funding for non-profits, has already caused thousands of organizations to lose licenses, shuttering projects in rural education, health, and legal aid.

“Civil society groups are the backbone of a democracy. Shutting down NGOs and intimidating activists using broad legal powers weakens the trust people have in the system.”
— Mukta Naik, Centre for Policy Research

News workers face online harassment and criminal cases for reporting on hate crimes, corporate corruption, and government wrongdoing. Many advocacy groups say their social media accounts are blocked more often under new IT regulations, while independent research on discrimination faces bureaucratic hurdles.

“True security cannot come from force alone. Our democracy depends on honest dialogue with every citizen, even the ones protesting on the streets.”
— Elaine Pearson, Asia Director, Human Rights Watch

Access to legal remedies is becoming more difficult as new statutes broaden the grounds for arrest and prosecution. Some legal experts warn that “speedy justice” may come at the price of due process, especially for those without political influence or financial resources.

“Expanding police powers must ensure citizens stay protected, not just controlled,”
— Priya Sharma, Delhi-based legal scholar

“The expanded definition of ‘threats to sovereignty’ can now include any form of dissent, putting journalists, students, and activists at risk.”
— Aakar Patel, Amnesty International India

Ground-Level Experiences: Real Stories, Real Concerns

To capture the true impact, it’s vital to listen to everyday Indians affected by these changes. Village elders in Ladakh speak of a climate of fear, where families hesitate to send children to school if protests are likely. Parents in Manipur recall nights in relief camps, scared not only of renewed violence but also of arbitrary detention. In Delhi, NGO workers describe mounting paperwork and uncertainties in funding that put entire health projects at risk.

Women who lost husbands in Ladakh protests describe a future more insecure than before. Youth activists in Manipur say social media is their last outlet, but internet bans make organizing and sharing atrocities almost impossible. “All we want is to live normally. These laws make it harder, not easier, to feel safe,” said a young Manipur woman.

Journalists, meanwhile, observe that the tone of reporting has shifted—fewer sources are willing to go on record, and more stories end up shelved due to vague legal threats. “Our work is to give voice to the voiceless, but now even voicelessness is a risk,” states an independent reporter.

Legal Debates: Reform, Accountability, and the Path Forward

The government, for its part, remains convinced that the new laws will modernize an outdated justice system and restore order to regions marred by violence and protest. Officials cite cases where prolonged trials delayed justice and assure the public that safeguards are in place to prevent abuse. Yet, the chorus for review grows louder, with legal scholars, judges, and activists demanding greater transparency, oversight, and public consultation.

Wasim Akram, a constitutional expert, argues that every major legal reform must involve a “people-first approach,” and merely replacing colonial laws isn’t enough. He points to lessons from earlier reforms, such as land rights legislation, which achieved success only after open dialogue, community involvement, and meaningful checks on authority.

Many experts suggest that independent monitoring panels, more stringent audit of police conduct, and clear right to redress should be integral to new law implementation. “Reform doesn’t mean more control; it means earning people’s trust,” says Wasim Akram.

FAQs: Understanding the Law Changes in India

Any reform in a democracy must earn its legitimacy through public trust, not fear. Quoting Mahatma Gandhi, “The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others.” This is especially true now, as India faces tension between security and liberty.

Local leaders in Ladakh ask for urgent talks, “Dialogue, not curfew, is the way forward.” Relief camp workers in Manipur urge for swift justice and practical help, saying, “Government support must be about saving lives, not just maintaining order.”

Across India, voices echo the need for balance—modern law enforcement with genuine protection of fundamental rights. The task is difficult, but as Gandhi reminds us, the ultimate test of any law is its service to the most vulnerable.

Where Do We Go From Here?

India’s new criminal laws bring the promise of faster justice and stronger national security. But their real impact depends on wise implementation, honest oversight, and the courage to listen to all voices—including those in dissent, on the margins, and seeking dignity through protest.

The events in Ladakh, Manipur, and across civil society show both danger and opportunity. Expanded police powers need not mean eroded rights—provided leaders honor constitutional principles, engage in honest dialogue, and provide redress for those wronged.

As the debate continues in Parliament, in courts, and on the streets, every Indian hopes for an answer: how can law, order, and freedom live side by side?