Applicability of the IPC After 1 July 2024: The Transition, the Repeal-and-Savings Framework, and the Coexistence of the Two Codes

On 1 July 2024, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, came into force, and the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was repealed. But the repeal of the IPC did not make it instantly and completely irrelevant. A crime committed on 30 June 2024 is governed by the IPC; a crime committed on 1 July 2024 is governed by the BNS. Cases registered under the IPC before the transition continue to be tried under the IPC. The two codes therefore COEXIST for years - the IPC continuing to govern offences committed before the transition, and the BNS governing offences committed on or after it. This coexistence is governed by the principles of repeal and savings, the constitutional protection against retrospective criminal law (Article 20(1)), and the general clauses framework. Understanding the applicability of the IPC after 1 July 2024 - when the IPC still applies, when the BNS applies, and how the transition is managed - is essential for every practitioner navigating cases in the transition period. This module walks through the repeal of the IPC, the savings provisions, the constitutional framework, the date-of-offence principle, the treatment of pending cases, and the practical navigation of the transition.

1. Introduction

The repeal of the IPC

On 1 July 2024, the BNS came into force and the IPC was repealed:

• Section 358 BNS repeals the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The BNS became the substantive criminal code from 1 July 2024.
• But the repeal did not make the IPC instantly and completely irrelevant.

The continuing relevance

The IPC continues to be relevant after 1 July 2024:

• It continues to govern offences committed BEFORE 1 July 2024.
• Pending IPC cases continue under the IPC.
• The IPC jurisprudence remains relevant for the carried-forward BNS provisions.

The coexistence of the two codes

The two codes COEXIST for years:

• The IPC governs offences committed before 1 July 2024.
• The BNS governs offences committed on or after 1 July 2024.
• Both operate simultaneously, distinguished by the date of the offence.
• This coexistence will continue for years, as pre-transition offences work through the courts.

2. The Repeal of the IPC (Section 358 BNS)

Section 358 BNS effects the repeal with savings:

• REPEAL: the IPC is repealed.
• SAVINGS: anything done or any action taken under the IPC is saved - it continues as if the IPC had not been repealed.

The significance:

• The repeal removes the IPC as the operative code for new offences.
• The savings provision preserves the IPC's application to pending actions and pre-repeal matters.
• This ensures continuity - pending IPC cases and pre-repeal offences continue under the IPC.

3. The Date-of-Offence Principle

The GOVERNING PRINCIPLE for determining the applicable code is the DATE OF THE OFFENCE:

The date-of-offence principle:

• The applicable code is determined by WHEN THE OFFENCE WAS COMMITTED.
• Offence before 1 July 2024 → IPC (the law in force at the time of the offence).
• Offence on or after 1 July 2024 → BNS (the law in force at the time of the offence).

The rationale:

• A person is charged under the law in force at the TIME OF THE OFFENCE.
• This is required by Article 20(1) of the Constitution (no ex post facto criminal law).
• The date of the offence, not the date of registration or trial, determines the applicable code.

The practical application:

• A murder committed on 30 June 2024 is charged under Section 302 IPC.
• A murder committed on 1 July 2024 is charged under Section 103 BNS.
• Even if both are tried after 1 July 2024, the applicable code depends on the date of the offence.

4. Article 20(1): No Ex Post Facto Criminal Law

Article 20(1) is the constitutional foundation of the date-of-offence principle:

• A person can be convicted only for violation of a law IN FORCE AT THE TIME of the offence.
• A person cannot be subjected to a penalty GREATER than that prescribed at the time of the offence.

The application to the IPC-BNS transition:

• For an offence committed before 1 July 2024, the law in force was the IPC - so the person is charged and convicted under the IPC.
• The person cannot be charged under the BNS for a pre-transition offence (as the BNS was not in force at the time).
• The person cannot be subjected to a greater penalty than that prescribed by the IPC at the time (if the BNS enhances the penalty, the enhanced penalty cannot apply to the pre-transition offence).

The significance:

• Article 20(1) constitutionally MANDATES the date-of-offence principle.
• It protects against the retrospective application of the BNS to pre-transition offences.
• It ensures that a person is judged by the law in force at the time of their act, and not subjected to a harsher law enacted later.

5. The Savings Provisions

The savings provisions preserve the IPC's application to pending and pre-repeal matters:

• SECTION 358 BNS (savings): anything done or any action taken under the IPC is saved.
• The savings provision ensures pending actions continue under the IPC.

What the savings provisions preserve:

• PENDING INVESTIGATIONS: investigations begun under the IPC continue.
• PENDING PROCEEDINGS: legal proceedings begun under the IPC continue.
• RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES: rights, privileges, obligations, and liabilities acquired or incurred under the IPC are preserved.
• REMEDIES: remedies under the IPC continue.

The significance:

• The savings provisions ensure that the repeal of the IPC does not disrupt pending matters.
• Pending IPC cases, investigations, and proceedings continue under the IPC as if it had not been repealed.
• This provides continuity and prevents the collapse of pending matters upon the repeal.

6. The General Clauses Act, 1897

The General Clauses Act, 1897 (Section 6) supplements the savings framework:

• It provides the general rule that a repeal does not affect the previous operation of the repealed law, or rights, liabilities, penalties, and proceedings under it.
• Investigations, proceedings, and remedies may be continued as if the repealing Act had not been passed.

The application to the IPC-BNS transition:

• Section 6 of the General Clauses Act preserves rights, liabilities, penalties, and proceedings under the repealed IPC.
• It ensures that offences committed against the IPC, and proceedings in respect of them, continue as if the IPC had not been repealed.
• It supplements the savings provision in Section 358 BNS.

The significance:

• The General Clauses Act provides the general legal framework for the effect of the repeal.
• It, together with Section 358 BNS, ensures continuity for pre-repeal offences and pending matters.
• It is a well-established framework that has governed repeals throughout Indian legal history.

7. Offences Committed Before 1 July 2024

Offences committed BEFORE 1 July 2024 are governed by the IPC:

• The IPC was the law in force at the time of the offence.
• The offence is charged, tried, and punished under the IPC.
• This applies even if the case is registered, investigated, or tried AFTER 1 July 2024.

The framework:

• A crime committed on or before 30 June 2024 is an IPC offence.
• It is charged under the relevant IPC section (e.g., Section 302 for murder).
• It is tried under the IPC and the CrPC (the procedural code in force at the time).
• Note: the procedural law may be governed by the BNSS for proceedings after 1 July 2024 (procedural changes generally apply to pending proceedings, subject to savings), but the SUBSTANTIVE offence remains under the IPC.

The significance:

• Pre-transition offences remain IPC offences, governed by the IPC.
• The date of the offence (before 1 July 2024) determines the application of the IPC.
• The IPC will govern these offences for years, as they work through the courts.

8. Offences Committed On or After 1 July 2024

Offences committed ON OR AFTER 1 July 2024 are governed by the BNS:

• The BNS was the law in force at the time of the offence.
• The offence is charged, tried, and punished under the BNS.

The framework:

• A crime committed on or after 1 July 2024 is a BNS offence.
• It is charged under the relevant BNS section (e.g., Section 103 for murder).
• It is tried under the BNS and the BNSS (the new procedural code).

The significance:

• Post-transition offences are BNS offences, governed by the BNS.
• The date of the offence (on or after 1 July 2024) determines the application of the BNS.
• The BNS governs all new offences from the transition date.

The new offences:

• The new BNS offences (organised crime, terrorism, mob lynching, snatching, etc.) apply only to offences committed on or after 1 July 2024.
• They cannot apply to pre-transition conduct (Article 20(1)).

9. Pending Cases and Investigations

The treatment of pending cases and investigations:

• PENDING IPC CASES: cases registered under the IPC before 1 July 2024 continue under the IPC.
• PENDING INVESTIGATIONS: investigations begun under the IPC before 1 July 2024 continue under the IPC (for the substantive offence).
• The savings provisions and the General Clauses Act ensure this continuity.

The framework for pending matters:

• A case registered under the IPC (for a pre-transition offence) continues under the IPC.
• The trial proceeds under the IPC (substantive) - the offence is judged by the IPC provisions.
• The procedural aspects may transition to the BNSS for proceedings after 1 July 2024 (subject to the procedural savings).

The distinction between substantive and procedural law:

• SUBSTANTIVE LAW (the offence and punishment): governed by the code in force at the time of the offence (IPC for pre-transition, BNS for post-transition) - Article 20(1).
• PROCEDURAL LAW (the process of trial): generally, procedural changes apply to pending proceedings (procedure is not subject to Article 20(1)), so the BNSS may govern the procedure for proceedings after 1 July 2024, subject to the specific savings.

The practical position:

• A pre-transition offence is tried under the IPC (substantive) but potentially the BNSS (procedural, for post-transition proceedings).
• This creates a nuanced situation - the substantive law (IPC) and procedural law (potentially BNSS) may differ for pending cases.
• The specific savings provisions in the BNSS address the procedural transition.

10. The Beneficial Construction Principle

A relevant principle is the BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION principle in criminal law:

• Where a later law is MORE BENEFICIAL to the accused (e.g., a lighter punishment, or decriminalisation), the accused may, in some circumstances, benefit from the more lenient provision.
• Article 20(1) prohibits a GREATER penalty than that prescribed at the time - but it does not prohibit a LESSER penalty.

The application to the transition:

• Article 20(1) protects against a GREATER penalty under the BNS for a pre-transition offence.
• But where the BNS provides a LESSER penalty (or decriminalises the offence), the question arises whether the accused may benefit.
• The general principle: Article 20(1) sets a ceiling (no greater penalty), and beneficial changes may, in appropriate cases, be applied in favour of the accused.

The decriminalisation situations:

• For offences DECRIMINALISED by the BNS (e.g., adultery, general attempted suicide), the decriminalisation may benefit accused persons whose conduct is no longer an offence.
• However, the specific application depends on the savings provisions and the principles of beneficial construction.

The nuance:

• The interaction between the savings provisions (preserving IPC liability) and the beneficial construction principle (favouring lighter/decriminalised treatment) is a nuanced area.
• The courts apply these principles to determine whether an accused benefits from a beneficial change in the BNS.

11. The Coexistence in Practice

The COEXISTENCE of the IPC and BNS in practice:

• Both codes operate simultaneously, distinguished by the date of the offence.
• The IPC governs pre-transition offences (before 1 July 2024); the BNS governs post-transition offences (on or after 1 July 2024).

The practical navigation:

• For each case, the practitioner determines the DATE OF THE OFFENCE.
• If before 1 July 2024: apply the IPC (substantive) and the relevant procedural code.
• If on or after 1 July 2024: apply the BNS (substantive) and the BNSS (procedural).

The duration of the coexistence:

• The coexistence will continue for YEARS.
• Pre-transition offences (some committed shortly before 1 July 2024) will take years to work through investigation, trial, appeals, and revisions.
• During this period, the IPC will continue to be applied to these offences.
• The IPC will gradually diminish in application as pre-transition offences are disposed of, but it will remain relevant for a long time.

The practical challenges:

• Practitioners must be conversant with BOTH codes (IPC for old offences, BNS for new).
• They must correctly identify the applicable code based on the date of the offence.
• They must navigate the substantive-procedural distinction (IPC substantive, potentially BNSS procedural for pending cases).
• They must apply the beneficial construction principle where the BNS provides lighter treatment.

12. Landmark Cases and Consolidated Judgments

Consolidated Landmark Judgments

• T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe, (1983) 1 SCC 177. Benefit of reduced punishment to the accused.
• Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 444. Beneficial construction favouring the accused.
• Kolhapur Canesugar Works v. Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 536. Repeal and savings framework.
• State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh, AIR 1955 SC 84. Repeal preserves rights and liabilities.
• Maru Ram v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 107. Framework for changes in criminal law.
• Union of India v. Sukumar Pyne, AIR 1966 SC 1206. Procedural changes apply to pending proceedings.
• Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh, AIR 1953 SC 394. Article 20(1) framework.
• Kedar Nath v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 404. No greater penalty than at the time.
• Zile Singh v. State of Haryana, (2004) 8 SCC 1. Retrospective operation framework.
• Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24. Retrospective application framework.
• Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602. Substantive vs procedural law framework.
• Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vatika Township, (2015) 1 SCC 1. Retrospective legislation framework.
• K. Eapen Chako v. Provident Investment Co., AIR 1976 SC 2610. Repeal and savings framework.
• Gajraj Singh v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, (1997) 1 SCC 650. Effect of repeal framework.
• Ramesh Kumar Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) SC. Transition framework.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the IPC still apply after 1 July 2024?

Yes, the IPC continues to apply to offences committed BEFORE 1 July 2024, even though it was repealed on that date. The GOVERNING PRINCIPLE is the DATE OF THE OFFENCE: an offence committed BEFORE 1 July 2024 is governed by the IPC; an offence committed ON OR AFTER 1 July 2024 is governed by the BNS. So while the BNS came into force on 1 July 2024 and repealed the IPC, the IPC continues to govern all offences committed before that date. This means: (i) a crime committed on or before 30 June 2024 is an IPC offence, charged and tried under the IPC; (ii) this applies even if the case is registered, investigated, or tried AFTER 1 July 2024; (iii) pending IPC cases continue under the IPC. The two codes therefore COEXIST for years - the IPC governing pre-transition offences and the BNS governing post-transition offences. The IPC will remain relevant for a long time, as pre-transition offences (which take years to work through investigation, trial, and appeals) are disposed of. The date of the offence, not the date of registration or trial, determines the applicable code.

Why does the date of the offence determine the applicable code?

The date of the offence determines the applicable code because of ARTICLE 20(1) of the Constitution - the prohibition on EX POST FACTO criminal law. Article 20(1) provides: 'No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a LAW IN FORCE AT THE TIME of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty GREATER than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.' This means: (i) a person can be convicted only for violation of a law IN FORCE AT THE TIME of the offence; (ii) a person cannot be subjected to a GREATER penalty than that prescribed at the time of the offence. Applied to the IPC-BNS transition: for an offence committed BEFORE 1 July 2024, the law in force was the IPC, so the person is charged and convicted under the IPC; the person CANNOT be charged under the BNS for a pre-transition offence (as the BNS was not in force at the time); and the person cannot be subjected to a greater BNS penalty than the IPC prescribed at the time. Article 20(1) constitutionally MANDATES the date-of-offence principle, protecting against the retrospective application of the BNS to pre-transition offences. It ensures a person is judged by the law in force at the time of their act, not a harsher law enacted later.

What happens to cases pending under the IPC on 1 July 2024?

Cases pending under the IPC on 1 July 2024 CONTINUE under the IPC (for the substantive offence). This is ensured by the REPEAL-AND-SAVINGS framework: (i) SECTION 358 BNS repeals the IPC but SAVES pending actions - anything done or any action taken under the IPC continues as if the IPC had not been repealed; (ii) SECTION 6 of the GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897 preserves rights, liabilities, penalties, and proceedings under the repealed IPC, and provides that investigations, proceedings, and remedies may be continued as if the repealing Act had not been passed. So pending IPC cases, investigations, and proceedings continue under the IPC. HOWEVER, there is a nuance on the SUBSTANTIVE-PROCEDURAL distinction: the SUBSTANTIVE law (the offence and punishment) is governed by the code in force at the time of the offence (IPC for pre-transition offences) - Article 20(1); but the PROCEDURAL law (the process of trial) generally follows the rule that procedural changes apply to pending proceedings (procedure is not subject to Article 20(1)), so the BNSS may govern the procedure for proceedings after 1 July 2024, subject to the specific procedural savings. This creates a nuanced situation for pending cases - the substantive law (IPC) and procedural law (potentially BNSS) may differ. The savings provisions ensure continuity, preventing pending matters from collapsing upon the repeal of the IPC.

Can an accused benefit from a lighter punishment under the BNS?

Possibly, under the BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION principle. Article 20(1) prohibits a GREATER penalty than that prescribed at the time of the offence - but it does NOT prohibit a LESSER penalty. So while a pre-transition offence cannot attract an enhanced BNS penalty (Article 20(1) sets a ceiling), the question arises whether an accused may BENEFIT from a lighter BNS provision. The beneficial construction principle: where a subsequent law is MORE BENEFICIAL to the accused (a lighter punishment, or decriminalisation), the benefit may, in appropriate cases, be given to the accused. In T. Barai v Henry Ah Hoe (1983), the Supreme Court held that where a subsequent law REDUCES the punishment for an offence, the benefit of the reduced punishment may be given to the accused, as Article 20(1) prohibits only a greater penalty, not a lesser one. So where the BNS provides a LESSER penalty for an offence, the accused may benefit. For DECRIMINALISED offences (e.g., adultery, general attempted suicide), the decriminalisation may benefit accused persons whose conduct is no longer an offence. HOWEVER, the specific application depends on the interaction between the savings provisions (preserving IPC liability) and the beneficial construction principle - a nuanced area that the courts apply case-by-case. The general position: Article 20(1) sets a ceiling (no greater penalty), and beneficial changes may be applied in favour of the accused in appropriate cases.

How long will the IPC continue to be relevant?

The IPC will continue to be relevant for YEARS after 1 July 2024. The reasons: (i) the IPC governs all offences committed BEFORE 1 July 2024, and these offences will take years to work through investigation, trial, appeals, and revisions; (ii) some offences committed shortly before the transition will only come to light and be prosecuted years later (subject to limitation); (iii) appeals and revisions of IPC cases will continue in the higher courts for years; (iv) the IPC jurisprudence remains relevant for interpreting the substantively similar BNS provisions (the carried-forward law). So the IPC will COEXIST with the BNS for a long time - governing pre-transition offences while the BNS governs post-transition offences. The IPC will GRADUALLY DIMINISH in application as pre-transition offences are disposed of, but it will remain relevant for a considerable period (likely a decade or more, given the pace of the Indian justice system). During this coexistence, practitioners must be conversant with BOTH codes - applying the IPC to pre-transition offences and the BNS to post-transition offences, using the date of the offence as the determining factor. Additionally, even after all pre-transition offences are disposed of, the IPC jurisprudence will continue to inform the interpretation of the corresponding BNS provisions, so the IPC's influence will persist through its case law even after its direct application ends.

Does the BNSS (procedure) apply to pending IPC cases?

This involves the SUBSTANTIVE-PROCEDURAL distinction. For a pre-transition offence (committed before 1 July 2024), the SUBSTANTIVE law (the offence and punishment) is governed by the IPC (the code in force at the time of the offence) - Article 20(1) requires this. But the PROCEDURAL law (the process of investigation and trial) follows a different rule: procedural changes generally APPLY to pending proceedings, because procedure is NOT subject to Article 20(1) (which protects only against retrospective substantive criminal law and enhanced penalties, not procedural changes). So the general principle is that the BNSS (the new procedural code) may govern the PROCEDURE for proceedings conducted after 1 July 2024, even for pre-transition offences, SUBJECT TO the specific savings provisions in the BNSS. In Union of India v Sukumar Pyne (1966), the Supreme Court held that procedural changes generally apply to pending proceedings, while substantive changes are governed by the law at the time of the offence. This creates a nuanced situation for pending cases: the SUBSTANTIVE offence is judged under the IPC (Section 302 for murder, etc.), but the PROCEDURE may follow the BNSS for post-transition proceedings. However, the specific savings provisions in the BNSS address the procedural transition, and there may be provisions preserving the CrPC procedure for certain pending matters. The practical position is complex and depends on the specific savings provisions - practitioners must check both the substantive code (IPC for pre-transition offences) and the applicable procedural provisions (potentially BNSS, subject to savings) for pending cases.

Related Topics on The Legal Bridge

For a fuller picture, read these companion notes on adjacent doctrines and provisions:

• BNS vs IPC Complete Comparative Study: the comprehensive comparison of the two codes.
• Article 20 Framework: the constitutional protection against ex post facto criminal law and double jeopardy.
• Major Changes Introduced by BNS: the overview of the changes, relevant to the transition.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: the companion procedural code and its transition provisions.