Why IPC-Based Drafts Get Objected—Use a BNS Converter

In 2024, one of the most common (and avoidable) reasons for objections in criminal courts is surprisingly simple: lawyers are still filing IPC-based drafts.

With the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), courts now expect filings to reflect the law currently in force. While judges understand that many cases originated under IPC, they are increasingly unwilling to overlook fresh drafts that ignore BNS entirely.

This article explains why IPC-based drafts attract objections, what courts actually object to, and how using a BNS conversion tool solves the problem instantly.

The reality in courts today
Across trial courts and sessions courts, the same pattern is visible:

bail applications citing IPC sections

charge-related arguments framed only under IPC

written submissions referring to “offence under Section ___ IPC”

templates that haven’t been updated post-2023

These drafts often trigger:

oral objections from the opposite side

queries from the bench

directions to “correct and refile”

unnecessary adjournments

The objection is not always hostile—but it is procedurally valid.

Why courts object to IPC-based drafts

1. IPC is no longer the operative penal law The most basic reason is also the strongest:

IPC is no longer the penal statute in force.

Courts cannot ignore this reality. When a lawyer files a fresh application relying exclusively on IPC, the court is forced to ask:

Which law are you invoking today?

Is this draft updated to the current statute?

Even if the facts are correct, the statutory foundation appears outdated.

1. Objections are about clarity, not punishment Contrary to fear, courts are not “penalising” lawyers for using IPC. They are seeking:

clarity

correctness

consistency with current law

A judge must ensure that:

offences are correctly identified

punishment provisions are accurately cited

procedural steps align with the new legal framework

IPC-based drafting disrupts this clarity.

1. BNS is not a mirror image of IPC Another major reason for objections is that IPC and BNS are not identical in structure.

Under BNS:

several offences are reorganised

some IPC sections are merged

some are split or reworded

numbering has changed

So when a draft cites an IPC section:

the court cannot automatically assume the equivalent BNS offence

ambiguity is created at the threshold

This is especially problematic at:

cognizance stage

charge framing

bail hearings

Where IPC-based drafts get objected the most
🔹 Bail applications
Bail arguments often depend on:

gravity of offence

punishment prescribed

statutory classification

Using IPC sections misrepresents the offence as it exists today under BNS, inviting objections.

🔹 Charge sheets & arguments on charge
Courts framing charges under BNS cannot rely on IPC-based drafting without clarification. This leads to:

queries

delays

directions for correction

🔹 Written submissions
Judges increasingly expect written arguments to reflect current law, not repealed statutes.

🔹 Appeals & revisions
Higher courts are particularly sensitive to:

statutory accuracy

correct citation of offences

IPC-based drafts in appellate proceedings often draw pointed questions.

The hidden problem: old templates and muscle memory
Most IPC-based drafts are not careless—they are habitual.

Lawyers rely on:

long-used formats

copied precedents

memory of section numbers

But habit is not a defence to statutory change.

This is where errors creep in unnoticed—until the objection comes from the other side or the bench.

How a BNS converter solves the problem instantly
A BNS conversion tool allows you to:

convert IPC sections to the correct BNS provision

verify offence numbering before filing

avoid guesswork

maintain drafting confidence

Instead of mentally mapping or flipping through bare acts, you get instant statutory clarity.

This one step removes the most common ground for objection.

Best practice: How to avoid objections completely
Step 1: Identify every IPC reference in your draft
Even passing references matter.

Step 2: Convert each IPC section using a converter
Do not assume equivalence. Verify.

Step 3: Choose the right citation style
New cases:

Cite BNS sections only

Ongoing cases:

Use BNS as the primary reference, with IPC in brackets if needed

Example:

“Offence under Section ___ BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Section ___ IPC, 1860).”

Step 4: Update your templates once
Most objections repeat because templates remain unchanged. Fix the source, not each draft.

Why juniors face objections more often
Judges often scrutinise junior-prepared drafts more closely—not unfairly, but attentively.

Using IPC-based drafting:

signals lack of update

weakens first impressions

invites corrective directions

A BNS converter helps juniors:

draft confidently

show statutory awareness

gain credibility early

What courts actually want to see
Courts are not demanding perfection. They want:

acknowledgment of BNS

correct statutory reference

seriousness about compliance

A draft that shows effort to convert is rarely objected to—even if minor adjustments are needed.

Final takeaway
IPC-based drafts get objected not because IPC is wrong, but because it is no longer sufficient on its own.

In 2024:

drafting under repealed law looks careless

objections are easy

corrections waste time

Using a BNS converter:

removes the objection at the root

ensures compliance

protects your credibility

In today’s criminal courts, accurate conversion is not optional—it is professional hygiene.Feel free to refer to our IPC to BNS Converter