INTRODUCTION
Any society’s primary means of addressing wrongs, deciding offenders, and upholding order is the criminal justice system. The Indian criminal justice system has historically placed a higher priority on the state’s interest in pursuing criminal cases and defending the accused’s procedural rights. This is largely due to colonial laws such as the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). Many academics refer to the victim of crime as a “silent stakeholder,” whose voice, dignity, and reparations were hardly ever at the center of the decision-making process. However, this traditional jurisprudence has undergone a significant change with the adoption of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) to replace the CrPC. BNSS represents not merely a legislative re-drafting of procedural law but a conscious legislative choice to embed victim-centricity, expedite justice delivery, and reconceive justice as restorative, participatory, and dignified.
The criminal justice system in India underwent the most extensive reform in more than fifty years. The colonial-era Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) has been replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which was passed by Parliament and went into effect on July 1, 2024. The BNSS is a contemporary procedural code that aims to simplify justice, incorporate technology, and reorient the system toward citizen and victim-centered values. The BNSS essentially restructures how criminal procedure accommodates victims in the justice process, while the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) update the substantive penal code and the rules of evidence, respectively.
A victim-centric approach to criminal justice acknowledges victims as essential participants who are entitled to information, protection, restitution, and meaningful involvement throughout the criminal process, rather than as passive witnesses or merely informants. In the past, victims played a supporting role in India’s legal system, which was largely centered on the state-accused dichotomy. By formally integrating victims’ rights and procedural safeguards into the criminal procedure framework, the BNSS aims to subvert this paradigm. The main victim-centered reforms of the BNSS are examined in this essay, along with their legal underpinnings, comparative background, practical applications, constraints, and anticipated impact on India’s criminal justice system going forward.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND NEED FOR VICTIM-CENTRIC REFORM
Legacy of CrPC and Victim Marginalization
The state was the main actor in criminal proceedings under the colonial legacy of the IPC and CrPC. Victims were marginalized, and their only responsibility was to report crimes and provide testimony in court. Although there were remedies like compensation clauses, they were rarely implemented, and victims had little influence over plea agreements, bail hearings, or sentencing. With the emphasis on victim compensation and dignity in significant cases like Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India (1995) and Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty (1996), judicial recognition of victim rights developed gradually. However, legislative frameworks continued to put the state and the accused ahead of victims, and systemic change remained sluggish. Therefore, even though victim rights were recognized by jurisprudence, the criminal justice system’s structural design was still insufficient.
Victims were typically viewed under the CrPC as witnesses or complainants, with little ability to affect the course of events. State prosecution played a major role in mediating victim participation, and victims were not legally entitled to a voice at crucial decision-making stages like bail hearings, plea talks, or the conclusion of police cases. In addition to discretionary and frequently irregular judicial practice, compensation plans were underdeveloped. Justice outcomes were hampered by these restrictions, particularly for marginalized communities, women, and children.
Additionally, victims were disproportionately impacted by lengthy legal proceedings and procedural delays, which resulted in case attrition, trauma, and pendency. A procedural framework that prioritized speeding up trials and defending the rights of the accused, according to critics, paid too little attention to victim dignity, information access, and restitution procedures.
CASE ANALYSIS
Before the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 was passed, constitutional jurisprudence played a major role in the gradual judicial recognition of victim rights in India. This was especially true of cases like Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India (1995) and Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty (1996). These cases did more than just settle personal conflicts; they established fundamental ideas that changed how victims were viewed in the criminal justice system.
A voluntary organization filed a public interest lawsuit in Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India (1995) on behalf of multiple domestic workers who had allegedly been gang-raped while travelling by train. The petition questioned the systemic shortcomings in the way rape survivors are treated in the legal and investigative systems, rather than just calling for the accused to be prosecuted. At the time, there was little procedural sensitivity in the recording of testimony, no statutory guarantee of legal representation for rape survivors during trial, and no organised victim compensation framework. The Supreme Court recognised that the right to life and personal liberty includes not only survival but also dignity, psychological integrity, and access to justice, citing Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Crucially, the Court acknowledged that insensitive investigative practices and drawn-out trials frequently cause victims of sexual assault to experience a “second victimisation.”
The ruling provided comprehensive guidelines that were revolutionary at the time. The Court ordered that the State create a Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to provide financial aid regardless of the trial’s verdict, that rape survivors receive legal aid at the police station itself, and that their anonymity be preserved to avoid social rejection. Since delays and evidentiary challenges may unfairly deny victims relief, the Court explicitly recognised that compensation should not be contingent only upon conviction. One of the first constitutional recognitions that victim compensation is not charity but rather a part of the State’s duty under Article 21 was this ruling. Even though the Court’s directives were advisory rather than codified in law, they prepared the way for Section 357A to be formally introduced into victim compensation plans in 2008 when it was added to the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, there was still inconsistency in how these guidelines were applied, underscoring the disconnect between structural reform and judicial articulation.
The ruling in Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty (1996) was also revolutionary. The plaintiff in this instance claimed that the accused had deceitfully lured her into a sexual connection by making a fake marriage promise and then deserted her. When the Supreme Court stepped in, the case was in the midst of rape-related criminal procedures under the Indian Penal Code. The Court was faced with a crucial doctrinal question: could a victim get interim compensation while criminal procedures were ongoing, pending a verdict of guilt? In criminal law, compensation was traditionally viewed as a consequence of conviction; judges were hesitant to grant financial assistance in the absence of a guilty decision.
Contrary to this conventional wisdom, the Supreme Court ruled that rape violates not just the penal code but also Article 21’s guarantee of the right to life and dignity. The Court underlined that criminal law must address the victim’s immediate needs in addition to punishing the offender. In a precedent-setting decision, the Court ruled that constitutional courts had the inherent power to create remedies that are required to protect basic rights, and ordered the accused to provide the complainant with interim compensation while the trial was pending. This acceptance of temporary compensation demonstrated a change in thinking about justice from one that was solely retributive to one that was more victim-sensitive.The judgment underscored that procedural technicalities should not obstruct substantive relief and that the trauma suffered by victims demands timely redress.
Despite having different factual backgrounds, both instances have one thing in common: they broadened the definition of criminal justice to include victim dignity and governmental accountability. But rather of having a systemic effect, their influence remained primarily jurisprudential. The IPC and CrPC’s colonial framework for criminal process kept the State at the centre of prosecution, leaving victims at the mercy of the prosecutor’s judgement. Although these rulings outlined the constitutional values of reparations, confidentiality, and dignity, they did not fundamentally alter the victims’ involvement in plea negotiations, bail hearings, or sentence procedures.
Therefore, Bodhisattwa Gautam and the Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum mark pivotal points in the development of victim rights in India, where the Supreme Court made an effort to humanize a strict procedural framework. They sparked legislative reforms in subsequent decades and shed light on the constitutional shortcomings of a state-centric criminal justice system. However, as later empirical data showed, victim rights continued to rely on judicial activism rather than inherent procedural protections due to the lack of complete statutory reform. It is important to comprehend current BNSS reforms in the context of growing judicial recognition and structural inertia.
WHAT IS THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA (BNSS)?
Enacted as Act No. 46 of 2023 and going into effect on July 1, 2024, the BNSS is the Indian procedural legislation that takes the place of the CrPC. Its goals are to modernize criminal procedure and improve the judicial system’s ability to respond to the requirements of society. The legislation places a strong emphasis on victim safety, time-bound procedures, technology integration, and restorative justice options. Its enactment signals a shift from the colonial procedural format toward a code shaped by contemporary legal principles and institutional capacities.1
Although the BNSS covers a wide range of topics, including police powers, arrest procedures, investigation, trial processes, appeals, and more, a number of its revisions are specifically intended to improve victim protection and participation.
Victim-Centered Provisions Under BNSS
A socio-legal study on the BNSS highlights that the new code represents a paradigm shift by bringing victim rights into procedural law, aiming to elevate victims from passive roles to active stakeholders.2
Several reforms that directly empower victims are introduced by the BNSS. The improvement in victim participation is among the biggest shifts. Victims can now express the pain they have experienced in their own words thanks to the provision for victim impact statements and their right to be heard during bail hearings and sentencing. With this, victims are no longer viewed as passive witnesses but rather as active participants in the legal system.
Another important reform is the strengthening of compensation and restitution mechanisms. Courts are empowered to order restitution directly from offenders, and state-funded compensation schemes have been reinforced to ensure victims receive tangible support. Protection and support measures have also been codified, including witness protection schemes that guarantee anonymity and safety, and special provisions for vulnerable victims such as women, children, and marginalized groups. Procedural innovations further enhance victim rights, allowing victims to engage legal counsel independently and mandating time-bound investigation and trial provisions to reduce secondary victimization caused by delays.
• Recognition of Victims
Although the BNSS does not universally define “victim” with the same explicit statutory clarity as some modern international statutes, legal scholars suggests that the code incorporates victim-oriented language and frameworks that implicitly broaden the scope of victim identity. This includes recognizing anyone who suffers loss, injury, or trauma due to an offence as a key participant in ensuing procedures.3
• Right to Information and Case Participation
Under the new regime of the BNSS, Victims may receive timely information about investigation status, charges, case pendency, and judicial actions taken at each stage, accompanied with the copies of FIRs or equivalent initial reports which can be provided immediately at the time of registration, free of cost. Furthermore, the BNSS enhances transparency by mandating SMS or digital updates on investigation progress.
Victims also have procedural standing to challenge decisions such as case closure or withdrawal of prosecution, giving them a voice in matters previously solely determined by prosecutorial discretion.4
• Legal Representation and Assistance
Unlike the CrPC, the BNSS explicitly permits victims to engage counsel of their choice to assist the prosecution’s case, subject to court permissions regarding scope of participation. Victims can file appeals against acquittals, convictions, or inadequate compensation orders, enhancing their procedural agency.5
• Compensation and Restitution
One of the most important victim-centered reforms in the BNSS is the Victim Compensation Scheme under Section 396 which states that, “the law requires for the central and state governments to establish compensation schemes for victims and dependents to cover losses, medical costs, rehabilitation, and psychological support.” This represents a structured approach to monetary restitution, complementing its criminal sanction framework.6
Victim compensation, under the BNSS, is not merely punitive but restorative, aimed at alleviating financial and emotional harm and enhancing resilience against social and economic hardship consequent to victimization.
• Victim Protection
The BNSS promotes protective processes such as in-camera trials for specific offences, being offences of sexual nature to safeguard victim privacy and prevent intimidation or traumatization. Legal mechanisms for witness protection and sensitive recording of evidence are also embedded to support victims in bringing forward testimony without fear or discomfort.7
COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES: BNSS VS. CRPC AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL MODELS
India’s BNSS can be better understood when placed in a comparative global context. The European Union’s Directive 2012/29/EU emphasizes victims’ rights to information, protection, support services, and participation, aligning closely with BNSS’s emphasis on dignity and participation.
In the United States, the Victims of Crime Act (1984) established victim compensation funds and introduced victim impact statements, which BNSS mirrors, though India must ensure strong funding to make these provisions effective.
Brazil’s constitutional provisions guarantee victims’ rights to assistance and compensation, highlighting the importance of embedding victim rights within constitutional frameworks.
South Africa’s restorative justice model, which emphasizes community participation and reconciliation, suggests that BNSS could go further by integrating restorative practices into its framework.
These comparisons demonstrate that while BNSS is progressive, its success will depend on effective implementation and adequate resources.
Procedural Shifts from CrPC
Under the CrPC, victim rights were largely indirect and mediated via prosecutorial statues. Victims lacked express rights to be informed at investigative stages, challenge closure reports, or insist on compensation. The BNSS stands in contrast by, mandating information rights to the victims, along with providing a structured victim compensation, further allowing victim appeals and recognizing victims’ counsel participation.8
International Standards
International frameworks, such as the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power (1985), hold that victims should have their views considered, receive restitution, protection, and access to justice. The BNSS’ provisions for compensation, protection, and information access are aligned with these norms in principle, though implementation will determine actual harmony with international standards.9
PRACTICAL IMPACTS AND IMPLEMENTATION DYNAMICS
In order to increase victim confidence in the criminal justice system, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) places a strong emphasis on improving access, institutional responsiveness, and technological integration. These three areas most significantly reflect the BNSS’s victim-centric orientation. The BNSS seeks to change criminal procedure from a purely state-prosecutorial model to one that recognises victims as participatory stakeholders by legalising the victim’s right to timely case information, copies of the First Information Report (FIR), updates on the status of the investigation, and access to state-administered compensation schemes for victims. Empirical evidence underscores the importance of such reforms because according to the National Crime Records Bureau’s Crime in India 2023 report, India registered over 58 lakh cognizable offences, with substantial pendency rates at both investigation and trial stages, factors that historically contributed to victim disengagement and further on attrition. In crimes against women alone, exceeding 4.45 lakh registered cases, delays and procedural opacity have often discouraged sustained participation. By institutionalising information rights and reinforcing compensation frameworks (building upon earlier victim compensation schemes introduced under Section 357A of the CrPC), BNSS seeks to improve trust in justice delivery and encourage victims to remain engaged throughout trial processes.
However, institutional readiness has a major impact on how effective these structural rights are. For implementation to be meaningful, police officers, prosecutors, and judiciary members must get thorough training in trauma-informed practices, victim protection procedures, and how to handle vulnerable witnesses with compassion. Both procedural and attitudinal transformation are required when moving from a witness-centric to a victim-centric paradigm. An understanding of this requirement is demonstrated by early initiatives by a number of state authorities, such as organised orientation programs run by police departments in cities like Bhopal and other urban regions. Given that NCRB data continues to show difficulties in conviction rates across sensitive offenses, particularly sexual violence cases where victim testimony and procedural treatment are crucial to outcomes, such training initiatives are essential. Without sustained capacity-building, statutory guarantees risk remaining declaratory rather than transformative.
In addition to human resource reform, BNSS integrates technological mechanisms designed to reduce procedural burden on victims and enhance efficiency. The statute explicitly facilitates electronic FIR registration, digital communication of case updates, audio-visual recording of statements, and greater reliance on forensic evidence in serious offences. These measures align with broader digitisation efforts under the e-Courts Mission Mode Project and the Inter-Operable Criminal Justice System (ICJS), which aim to create seamless coordination between police, courts, prisons, and forensic laboratories. Technological integration is particularly significant in the context of rising cybercrime, as over 65,000 cases have been reported in 2023, along with geographically dispersed victims who may otherwise face barriers in accessing police stations or court premises. If effectively implemented, these digital tools can streamline case progression, minimise repeated victim appearances, and reduce secondary victimisation. Thus, the combined emphasis on enhanced access, institutional training, and technological modernisation illustrates how BNSS seeks not merely procedural reform, but a structural recalibration of India’s criminal justice system toward a more responsive and victim-centred framework.
CHALLENGES AND LIMITATIONS
Despite the progressive victim-centric approach of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), several structural and socio-legal challenges may hinder its transformative potential. Foremost among these is the issue of awareness and legal literacy. The formal recognition of rights such as access to FIR copies, participation at critical stages of proceedings, and entitlement to compensation does not automatically translate into effective enforcement unless victims are adequately informed of their existence. India continues to face significant gaps in legal awareness, particularly in rural and economically disadvantaged regions. Studies conducted under the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) outreach initiatives have consistently indicated that a substantial portion of victims, especially women and members of marginalized communities, remain unaware of procedural remedies available to them. In the absence of structured public education campaigns, multilingual awareness drives, and integration of legal literacy into community institutions, the procedural safeguards introduced under BNSS risk remaining largely theoretical rather than operational.
Closely linked to awareness is the question of institutional capacity. Victim compensation schemes, strengthened under BNSS and previously grounded in Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, require sustained financial allocations, administrative coordination, and monitoring frameworks for effective implementation. Regular, reliable audits and state-level reviews of victim compensation mechanisms have revealed disparities in fund utilization, delays in delivery, and uneven administrative efficiency across states. Without dedicated compensation boards, digital tracking systems, and time-bound processing protocols, victims may continue to experience unfair waiting periods for relief. The expansion of forensic mandates and time-bound procedural requirements under BNSS further intensifies the demand for infrastructural investment, including trained personnel, forensic laboratories, and digital case management systems. Institutional under-preparedness could therefore undermine the statute’s objective of expedited and responsive justice.
Socio-economic disparities also present prominent barriers to the timely realization of victim rights. Marginalized groups including women facing domestic violence, rural populations with limited access to police stations or courts, and socio-religious minorities often encounter intersecting obstacles such as economic dependency, social stigma, fear of retaliation, and limited access to quality legal representation. According to recent National Crime Records Bureau data, crimes against women and Scheduled Castes continue to represent a significant share of registered offences, yet reporting gaps persist due to social pressures and systemic inequalities. In such contexts, procedural empowerment under BNSS must be complemented by strengthened legal aid services, community-based victim support systems, and protective mechanisms that address not merely legal barriers but also socio-cultural issues.
Finally, while enhancing victim participation, BNSS must carefully preserve constitutional safeguards guaranteed to the accused. The Indian criminal justice system is anchored in foundational principles such as the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair and impartial trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, and adherence to established evidentiary standards. A disproportionate emphasis on victim participation without maintaining procedural neutrality could risk compromising balanced adjudication. The legitimacy of a victim-centred framework ultimately depends on its compatibility with due process norms. Therefore, the future evolution of BNSS must ensure that victim empowerment operates within a rights-sensitive constitutional framework that harmonizes the interests of victims with the fundamental protections guaranteed to defendants.
THE FUTURE OF VICTIM-CENTERED JUSTICE IN INDIA
Looking forward, the long-term success of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in fostering a genuinely victim-centred criminal justice system will depend upon its ability to evolve beyond procedural reform and incorporate deeper structural and normative innovations. One significant area for future development lies in the integration of restorative justice mechanisms within the formal criminal process. While the BNSS strengthens participatory and compensatory rights, it remains largely anchored in an adversarial, retributive framework. Incorporating structured restorative practices such as victim–offender mediation, supervised community restitution, and facilitated dialogue processes, which could provide victims with opportunities for acknowledgment of harm, emotional closure, and tailored restitution that traditional punitive sanctions may not fully deliver. Comparative experiences from jurisdictions such as Canada and New Zealand demonstrate that restorative models, when carefully regulated, can reduce recidivism and enhance victim satisfaction. In the Indian context, such mechanisms may be particularly relevant for certain categories of offences where reconciliation, accountability, and rehabilitation can coexist without compromising public safety or constitutional safeguards.
Simultaneously, the inclusion of technology-driven justice systems presents a transformative outlook for expanding victim access. The BNSS’s introduction of electronic FIR registration, digital communication of case updates, audio-visual recording of statements, and virtual hearings aligns with broader digital governance initiatives such as the e-Courts Mission Mode Project and the Inter-Operable Criminal Justice System (ICJS). These tools have the potential to reduce procedural delays, minimize repeated physical appearances in court, and ease secondary victimization especially in sensitive cases involving sexual violence or child victims. Moreover, digital case tracking portals and mobile-access platforms can empower victims to monitor proceedings in real time, fostering transparency and procedural confidence. However, the success of such technological reforms is dependent upon addressing India’s persistent digital divide. According to recent national digital access surveys, disparities in internet penetration between urban and rural areas, and across gender lines, remain substantial. Without parallel investment in digital literacy, infrastructure expansion, and multilingual user interfaces, technology-driven justice only risks reproducing rather than reducing inequality.
Institutional accountability constitutes another critical dimension of sustainable victim-centred reform. Procedural mandates under BNSS such as time-bound investigation and trial requirements must be reinforced through measurable performance indicators and oversight mechanisms. Establishing standardized metrics for investigative timelines, conviction consistency, compensation disbursement rates, and victim satisfaction could create practical benchmarks for evaluating system responsiveness. Transparent publication of such data through judicial dashboards or annual justice performance reports would enhance public trust and policy responsiveness. Additionally, independent monitoring bodies or strengthened internal vigilance mechanisms within prosecutorial and police institutions could ensure compliance with victim protection protocols and reduce arbitrary deviations from statutory obligations.
Lastly, legislation improvement must continue to be an ongoing process that adapts to new victimisation trends. The necessity for dynamic procedural safeguards that are adapted to new types of harm is highlighted by the sharp rise in cybercrime, online financial fraud, human trafficking networks, and technology-facilitated sexual offences. Recent data from the National Crime Records Bureau shows a consistent increase in trafficking cases and cyber-related offences, underscoring changing vulnerabilities that conventional procedural frameworks might not fully account for. Therefore, future BNSS modifications could codify specialised support services for survivors of trafficking and sexual exploitation, improve protection measures for those who have been digitally victimised, and strengthen cross-border investigative cooperation. Such improvements should be made by formal research and jurisprudential advancements to guarantee that procedural law continues to be sensitive to social circumstances.
In sum, the future path of BNSS as a vehicle for victim-centred justice will depend on its capacity to integrate restorative principles, leverage inclusive technological innovation, institutionalize accountability frameworks, and remain legislatively adaptable. These anticipated reforms, if implemented thoughtfully and supported by regular monitoring, can transform the BNSS from a statutory reform into a dynamic framework capable of embedding dignity, participation, and substantive redress at the core of India’s criminal justice system.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
The BNSS represents a shift from retributive to restorative justice, emphasizing rehabilitation alongside punishment. However, critics argue that victim-centricity must not compromise the due process rights granted to the accused. Balancing these interests is crucial to maintaining fairness in the justice system. Moreover, while BNSS provisions are admirable, the implementation gaps could reduce them to symbolic gestures. Without adequate funding, infrastructure, and sensitization, victims may continue to face marginalization despite legislative reforms. Therefore, the future of victim-centered justice in India depends not only on the codified laws of the BNSS but also on the political will and institutional capacity to enforce them.
CONCLUSION
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) represents a historic reform of India’s procedural criminal law. By embedding victim rights within its purview, through information access, representation, compensation, and protective mechanisms, it attempts to transform Indian criminal justice into a more victim-centered system aligned with modern legal standards. While challenges such as institutional capacity, public awareness, and equitable implementation remain significant, the BNSS provides a statutory framework with the potential to fundamentally reshape the role of victims from passive observers into empowered participants in the justice process. Although drawing influence from foreign ideologies of victim-centric criminal justice delivery systems, it is now built to be a comprehensive amalgamation of all the attributes it took inspiration from. This reflects not only legal change but a broader societal commitment to dignity, fairness, and justice for all citizens.10
*****
Footnotes
1. Vickey Mishra, Indian Judicial Forum and Home, HANDBOOK on the BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 – Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.
2. IJLLR Journal, “Reimagining Justice: A Socio-Legal Analysis Of Victims’ Rights Under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita And Bharatiya” IJLLR Journal, 2025available at: https://www.ijllr.com/post/reimagining-justice-a-socio-legal-analysis-of-victims-rights-under-the-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-and?utm_source=chatgpt.com (last visited February 15, 2026).
3. IJLLR Journal, “Reimagining Justice: A Socio-Legal Analysis Of Victims’ Rights Under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita And Bharatiya” IJLLR Journal, 2025available at: https://www.ijllr.com/post/reimagining-justice-a-socio-legal-analysis-of-victims-rights-under-the-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-and?utm_source=chatgpt.com (last visited February 15, 2026).
4. Smt Sk and Shireen, Topic: Victimology and Compensation SESSION-III PAPER PRESENTATION on the TOPIC of VICTIMOLOGY and COMPENSATION.
5. Smt Sk and Shireen, Topic: Victimology and Compensation SESSION-III PAPER PRESENTATION on the TOPIC of VICTIMOLOGY and COMPENSATION.
6. “Reimagining Justice: A Feminist Critique of India’s New Criminal Laws – The Amikus Qriae,” The Amikus Qriae, 2025available at: https://theamikusqriae.com/reimagining-justice-a-feminist-critique-of-indias-new-criminal-laws/?utm_source=chatgpt.com (last visited February 15, 2026).
7. Smt Sk and Shireen, Topic: Victimology and Compensation SESSION-III PAPER PRESENTATION on the TOPIC of VICTIMOLOGY and COMPENSATION.
8. Smt Sk and Shireen, Topic: Victimology and Compensation SESSION-III PAPER PRESENTATION on the TOPIC of VICTIMOLOGY and COMPENSATION.
9. IJLLR Journal, “Reimagining Justice: A Socio-Legal Analysis Of Victims’ Rights Under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita And Bharatiya” IJLLR Journal, 2025available at: https://www.ijllr.com/post/reimagining-justice-a-socio-legal-analysis-of-victims-rights-under-the-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-and?utm_source=chatgpt.com (last visited February 15, 2026).
10. IJLLR Journal, “Reimagining Justice: A Socio-Legal Analysis Of Victims’ Rights Under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita And Bharatiya” IJLLR Journal, 2025available at: https://www.ijllr.com/post/reimagining-justice-a-socio-legal-analysis-of-victims-rights-under-the-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-and?utm_source=chatgpt.com (last visited February 15, 2026).