Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criminal Law in India


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Indian Penal Code. There isn't 100% agreement here but there is a sufficient rough consensus to close as a Redirect. If editors want to spend time Merging content to another article, please propose it on the redirect talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Criminal Law in India

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The three criminal laws applicable in India, IPC, CrPC and IEA have their own respective article pages. This article serves no purpose and appears like a poorly worded, duplicate article. WP:BIT applies.

Note: The new laws replacing erstwhile IPC, CrPC and IEA which are BNSS, BNS, BSA-2023 have their own articles as well. Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Delta  space 42  (talk • contribs) 14:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * IPC, CrPC, IEA, BNSS, BNS, BSA-2023 Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Indian Penal Code: the verifiable portions already exist in the three articles mentioned by the nom, and the rest reads like OR. Owen&times; &#9742;  16:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  20:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Redirect per .  αvírαm  | (tαlk) 05:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Delete  - Because there are three criminal laws and each law has its own article, redirecting just to any one article would again appear messy. Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote. Liz Read! Talk! 21:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC))
 * Keep. Satisfies GNG easily and by an exceptionally wide margin. There is an exceptionally large number of books and periodical articles on Indian criminal law, and they treat it as a single unified topic, and many are entirely and specifically about Indian criminal law as a whole. The summary style is not a content fork. We need to have an article that is an overview of Indian criminal law generally. The six statutes linked to do not contain the whole of Indian criminal law. There was criminal law in India before any of the statutes listed were enacted. For example, the Criminal Law (India) Act 1828 (9 Geo 4 c 74) was a (very lengthy) compilation of criminal law provisions from earlier statutes. There are many other Indian statutes that contain provisions that form part of the criminal law. India is a common law country, which means that roughly on the order of half the criminal law consists of judicial precedents (see eg amongst other works, and the books of reports of cases might run to a much larger number of pages than the books of statutes). That case law is not part of any statute. There are principles of criminal law that go beyond the wording of a single specific statute, and it is entirely possible to analyse and classify criminal laws in a way that does not consist of discussing the whole of one statute at a time. Indeed, it is necessary to adopt this approach for a country that still has many uncodified offences. If there is no overview article, it will be impossible for readers to find most of the criminal law of India. We need this article for navigation. A redirect to the penal code is especially inappropriate, because the criminal procedure code, and all the other statutes creating criminal offences, are as much a part of the criminal law as the penal code is. James500 (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt, I am not aware of any actual original research in this article in its present revision (which I last edited several minutes ago). The article contains verifiable content not included in the other articles, and a great deal more can and should be added. James500 (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt only: The following books about Indian criminal law were published before 1860, and their content has nothing to do with the Penal Code of 1860, or any of the criminal procedure codes: John D Mayne, A Treatise on the Principles and Practice of Criminal Law, 1st Ed, 1859 Catalogue, Preface to 1st Ed of 1859 reprinted in 2nd Ed of 1865; Baynes, The Criminal Law of the Madras Presidency, 1848: . 1858 ; Beaufort, A Digest of the Criminal Law of the Presidency of Fort William, 1850, . 2nd Ed, Pt 1, 1857, Pt 2, 1859 . There are also chapters on criminal law in Morley's Analytical Digest, 1850 ; and on criminal judicature in his Administration of Justice in British India, 1858 . A history book covering the pre-1860 period is Banerjee, Background to Indian Criminal Law . There are chapters on criminal law in general works on Indian legal history covering the pre-1860 period, such as Banerjee's English Law in India ; chapter 16 of Sinha's Legal History of India is "History of Criminal Law . . . in India before . . . the Indian Penal Code" ; chapter 26 of Mittal's An Introduction to Indian Legal History is "Criminal Law before . . . Penal Code" ; and so on. WP:DETCON says "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy". James500 (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ; those are excellent citations to add to and expand the History section of Indian Penal Code, which covers the legislative status prior to 1860. Owen&times; &#9742;  13:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt only: The "History" section of the IPC article is presently entirely concerned with the drafting of that Code. It says nothing about the pre-1860 laws. James500 (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's right, hence my use of the word "expand". A brief historical review of the status of criminal law in India prior to 1860 is relevant to the IPC article, but does not, I believe, justify a standalone article. the fact that both Sinha and Mittal bundle their coverage of the 1828 Act and other pre-1860 laws under the single heading, "before the Indian Penal Code" suggests to me that the material can justifiably be included in the History section of the IPC article. Owen&times; &#9742;  14:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, what the chapters in Mittal and Sinha actually establish is that the topic of "History of Indian criminal law before 1860" satisfies GNG in its own right. The logical inference is that the "before the Penal Code" language indicates that Mittal and Sinha are treating that period of history as distinct from, and irrelevant to, the history of the IPC (which does not begin before the First Law Commission started drafting the IPC). Mittal treats the penal code as part of his chapter 27 on "Law Commissions and Codification" (notice the IPC does not even get its own chapter in either book). Similarly Sinha has chapter 12 on "Codification in British India" and chapter 13 on "The Indian Law Commissions . . .". I think, however, that retaining this article would be more practical than creating "History of Indian criminal law before 1860" from scratch. James500 (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: There is a rough consensus to Redirect this article but also strong opposition to that move. I think this discussion would benefit from a little more time to iron out the existing differences of opinion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect makes the most sense in this case.  Dr vulpes  (Talk) 01:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A redirect would make the least sense, because the penal code is not the same thing as the criminal law. In fact, the penal code is not even close to being the same thing as the criminal law. Redirecting this page to the penal code of 1860 would be worse than redirecting United Kingdom to England, because this article has much less overlap with the articles on its subtopics, and the articles on its subtopics don't cover anything close to the whole of the parent topic. James500 (talk) 12:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirects aren't to a page that is the same thing. The target is an existing page that we believe will best serve a reader searching for that term. Of course the criminal system in India is more than just the 1860 Act. However, the article about the Act contains not only relevant information, but also links to the criminal procedure and evidentary laws.
 * Everything in this page is already covered in other articles here, better written articles with better sourcing. I'm not convinced we need a top-level page about criminal law in India, especially if it's a content fork, but if you want to turn it into a DAB page rather than a redir, I'll support. Owen&times; &#9742;  17:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The penal code and criminal procedure code articles do not include everything in this article. They do not, for example, mention the offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Food Adulteration Act, the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 or the Defence of India Act.
 * More importantly, the penal code and criminal procedure code articles do not include, and probably could not include, a large number of criminal laws that are not part of those codes (and are not amendments to those codes). Where, for example, are we supposed to put the Admiralty Offences (Colonial) Act, 1849 and the Admiralty Jurisdiction (India) Act, 1860 (which are apparently still used in cases of piracy)? Where are we supposed to put the Act of 1828, let alone the earlier Acts that were repealed by it ? Where are we supposed to put the pre-1860 criminal statutes and pre-1882/1973 criminal procedure statutes (some of which were repealed long before 1860 or 1882/1973)? Where, for example, shall we put these Acts (which applied to India in addition to the code)? Where are we supposed to put rules of common law? And all the other criminal laws.
 * The penal code and criminal procedure code articles are not particularly well written either. All of these articles need to be greatly expanded and to some extent rewritten. James500 (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * True, the proposed target Criminal Law in India doesn't mention the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 or the Defence of India Act. Each of those have their own page. We can certainly add these specific acts to the "See also" section in the target. The Criminal Law in India article doesn't tell us anything about these laws other than that they exist. This could be handled just as well in a DAB. Or better yet, a category such as Category:Criminal Law in India - we have enough separate articles to make such a category useful.
 * The "History" section of our page is currently talking only about the IPC. If there's anything in it that isn't covered by the History section at the target, let's merge it into the target. The "Issues with IPC" section, in its current form, isn't encyclopedic. Perhaps a rewritten "Criticisms" section, with more than just one TV show as source, would do a better job, but those should go into the individual articles about the respective act they address. Criticism not aimed at a specific Act should go into Law of India.
 * You asked, Where are we supposed to put the pre-1860 criminal statutes. I think the natural place for that is in the History section of the IPC article.
 * If the Admiralty Offences (Colonial) Act, 1849 and the Admiralty Jurisdiction (India) Act, 1860 are notable, they deserve their own article. If they aren't notable, perhaps a mention in Piracy would suffice.
 * As to rewriting the IPC and the criminal procedure code articles, I agree, and I'm happy to leave that rewriting in your capable hands, . Owen&times; &#9742;  20:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Putting Acts in a "see also" section fails to explain what their relevance is. The present article at least tells us they create offences. A law book would normally try to group related offences together. For example, the Defence of India Act, 1915 was held to be in pari materia with "An Act for the prevention, trial and punishment of offences against the State" (Act 11 of 1857). Presumably both could be put under the heading of "offences against the State", on that basis, if they remain in this article. That would more informative than putting them in a list of miscellaneous statutes in random order.
 * I support the creation of a category, but I must point out that it is WP:NOTDUP.
 * I have removed the "Issues with IPC" section for the time being.
 * I do not think that criminal statutes repealed in 1828 should be included in the IPC article, since the code was passed more than thirty years after they disappeared. I think their inclusion would be an anachronism and irrelevant to a code passed in 1860. I do not think the history of the IPC includes the whole history of the criminal law.
 * I could put the Admiralty Acts in Piracy, but how would readers be able to reach that page from the IPC article (which gives no indication that piracy is an offence in India)?
 * Even if we resolve all of these particular problems, how are we going to fit a large number of statutes into the IPC article without swamping it? James500 (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I got my law education from textbooks arranged by course topic: Common Law, Criminal Law, etc.; I'm assuming you did as well. The arrangement you describe follows that pattern. However, Wikipedia is not a textbook. There is no editorial onus on us to make sure the reader finds out about the Admiralty Acts unless they specifically search for it.
 * That said, I think a navigation template accompanying Category:Law of India, similar in style to Template:Taxation_in_India or Template:Law enforcement in India, subdivided into Constitutional, Criminal, Civil, Administrative, etc. would provide the reader with an easy way to navigate through all the relevant topics under the broad umbrella of the legal system in India, and would be far more useful than the current attempt to aggregate all criminal-law-related articles in one introductory page. Would you be interested in building such a template? Let me know if you need my help. Owen&times;  &#9742;  22:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedias like "Halsbury" also follow the pattern I described. I do not think they are intended to teach or instruct. What WP:NOT actually says is that WP articles should not contain "leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples". I do not think that navigation links, or a logical arrangement, or an arrangement that happens to facilitate navigation, constitute teaching or instruction. James500 (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Redirect for now per above, but I think an overview article can be written that summarizes each of the laws and links to the appropriate pages using main hats. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirecting the page would make it harder to create such an overview article. The reason I have not attempted to expand the article with the many missing laws etc is because people keep !voting for redirection; and especially because they keep !voting for redirection without, as far as I can see, citing any applicable policy or guideline. Editors will be reluctant to expand a (redirect or article) page on a notable topic if they think the community might respond with a WP:BLAR; and they will be especially reluctant to expand such a page if they think the community might respond with a WP:BLAR for content reasons that do not seem to be based on any particular policy or guideline (which makes it unclear what the community wants), and which seem to impose a deadline on expansion and improvement. Further, redirection will also impair the development of the missing articles and article content in this area of the project, since it will eliminate the list of criminal laws. James500 (talk) 10:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , how about the following compromise: we Merge the article into the Law of India section, with the same depth we did with the Tax law section there, leaving the current page as a redirect to that section. If the section grows too large for embedding in Law of India, it will be spun off back into this page, with the original page history intact. This way, you can keep improving the Criminal law section under the parent page at your leisure, without having the sword of AfD hanging over you. The question of standalone notability can be readdressed once content and sourcing are at a more mature state. Sounds workable? Owen&times; &#9742;  13:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no question about the standalone notability of this topic. Do you want me to go through the books and periodical articles on Indian criminal law, one at a time, and explain the extent to which they are not about the Penal Code of 1860 (or the criminal procedure codes, for that matter)? The topic is not a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of the Penal Code, because that guideline applies to "2 articles about the exact same thing", and the Penal Code is significantly less than half the criminal law. Conversely, criteria 2 and 3 of the information page WP:NOTMERGE do apply. I do not wish to risk becoming involved in a cycle of merging, splitting, re-merging, re-splitting, and arguing about whether there is "enough" wikipedia content to split. The purpose of GNG is to prevent the merger of stubs on notable topics. James500 (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am no longer talking about the Penal Code of 1860. My latest proposal to you is to merge the contents as a section in Law of India, seeing as consensus here is tending towards not keeping the article as a standalone page. I thought you would find my compromise appealing, seeing as it offers us the opportunity to continue improving the contents, albeit as a section in a bigger article. Regardless of what is the correct outcome, inflexibility and resistance to compromise makes it difficult to work on crowdsourced, consensus-driven projects like Wikipedia. Please reconsider. Owen&times; &#9742;  16:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You have not offered a compromise, and it is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY for me to edit the article Law of India. I intend to withdraw from this discussion now. James500 (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.