The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2025 — Towards Trust-Based Governance and Decriminalization of Minor Offences

Abstract 

The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2025 represents a landmark legislative initiative in India’s ongoing project of modernising its regulatory and penal framework. Introduced in the Lok Sabha on 18 August 2025, the Bill amends 355 provisions across 16 central legislations, with the effect of decriminalising 288 minor offences. Its primary objective is to rationalise the use of criminal law by removing imprisonment as a penalty for technical or procedural infractions, substituting it with civil penalties, administrative fines, and improvement notices. 

By reorienting enforcement towards trust-based governance, the Bill seeks to balance deterrence with proportionality, thereby reducing the compliance burden on businesses and individuals, while at the same time enhancing the ease of doing business and the ease of living. In practical terms, the Bill empowers administrative authorities to adjudicate violations, introduces a system of graduated sanctions, and mandates periodic revision of monetary penalties to ensure their continuing effectiveness. 

The reform mirrors global trends in regulatory governance, particularly in jurisdictions such as the European Union and the United States, where civil and administrative enforcement has long been preferred for technical or regulatory breaches. Nevertheless, it has sparked significant debate within India.

Supporters see it as a rational corrective to over-criminalisation, which has historically overburdened courts and constrained entrepreneurship. Critics, however, caution against regulatory dilution, particularly in sectors such as health, food safety, and consumer protection, where compliance failures can endanger public welfare. Concerns also persist regarding the adequacy of due process safeguards when adjudicatory powers shift from courts to administrative bodies. This article provides a comprehensive summary and critical analysis of the Bill. It outlines the legislative changes, explores their intended objectives and practical mechanisms, and evaluates their potential impact on governance and economic activity. It argues that while the Bill is an ambitious and necessary reform, its ultimate success will depend on institutional capacity, proportional sanctions, procedural safeguards, and ongoing monitoring of its implementation. 

Introduction 

India’s legal system has long been characterized by an expansive reliance on criminal law. Minor procedural lapses such as incorrect labelling, delays in filing statutory returns, or clerical errors in documentation  have historically exposed businesses and individuals to the possibility of criminal prosecution, including imprisonment. While the rationale behind such provisions was to secure compliance and deter misconduct, over time they created a climate of fear and overdeterrence, stifling entrepreneurship and contributing to massive backlogs in India’s courts.

The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2025 (hereinafter “the Bill”) is the latest step in India’s journey to reform this system. Building on the Jan Vishwas Act, 2023, which amended 42 legislations, the Bill broadens the scope of decriminalisation, amending 355 provisions across 16 central laws and decriminalising 288 offences. The targeted provisions are spread across diverse statutes, including the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, the Apprentices Act, 1961, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994. 

The Bill’s objectives are threefold: 

1. To rationalise criminal law by reserving imprisonment for genuinely culpable conduct.

2. To reduce the compliance burden on citizens and businesses by replacing punitive sanctions with proportionate administrative penalties. 

3. To promote trust-based governance, encouraging voluntary compliance through guidance and corrective mechanisms rather than coercion.

In doing so, the Bill places India in line with international best practices. In the European Union, regulatory enforcement in areas such as competition law and data protection is achieved through hefty administrative fines rather than criminal penalties. Similarly, in the United States, agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission or Food and Drug Administration rely primarily on civil sanctions and administrative enforcement. By adopting a comparable model, India seeks to modernise its regulatory environment, reduce the burden on its criminal justice system, and enhance its attractiveness for investment. Yet, the Bill has ignited debate. 

On the one hand, it is seen as a progressive, pragmatic reform that will improve the ease of doing business, de-clog courts, and humanise regulatory enforcement. On the other hand, it raises concerns about regulatory dilution, the risk of creating a culture of impunity, and the adequacy of procedural safeguards in administrative adjudication. 

This article proceeds in four parts. 

Part I provides a summary of the Bill’s key provisions, highlighting the statutes affected and the mechanisms introduced. 

Part II explores the objectives and policy rationale, situating the Bill within broader global trends in regulatory governance.

 Part III offers a critical evaluation, addressing potential risks and challenges. 

Finally, Part IV presents concluding reflections and recommendations, outlining the conditions under which the Bill can succeed in achieving its ambitious goals.

Key Features of the Jan Vishwas Bill, 2025 

Scope of Amendments 

The Bill amends 355 provisions in 16 central laws. Among the most significant changes: 

• In the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, several offences relating to licensing and registration are decriminalised. 

• Under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, penalties for technical non-compliance in measurement and labelling are converted into administrative fines. 

• The Apprentices Act, 1961 replaces imprisonment with fines for employers failing to meet apprenticeship requirements. 

• The New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 substitutes imprisonment with administrative penalties for minor municipal violations. 

• In the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, certain minor procedural infractions (e.g., recordkeeping errors) are removed from the ambit of criminal law. 

Mechanisms Introduced The Bill introduces several innovations:

1. Improvement notices for first-time offences, allowing violators to rectify mistakes without punitive sanctions. 

2. Civil fines and administrative penalties in lieu of imprisonment, ensuring proportionality.

3. Administrative adjudication: empowering regulatory authorities to resolve disputes and impose penalties, thus bypassing criminal courts. 

4. Periodic revision of fines: monetary penalties are to be revised every three years to maintain deterrence. 

Objectives and Policy Rationale

Ease of Doing Business 

By reducing the risk of criminal prosecution, the Bill lowers barriers to entrepreneurship, particularly for small and medium enterprises. Criminalisation of minor offences has long discouraged investment and innovation, and its removal aligns with India’s ambition to improve its global competitiveness. 

Ease of Living 

For citizens, the Bill reduces the risk of criminalisation for everyday infractions, fostering a regulatory environment based on guidance and cooperation. 

Trust-Based Governance 

The Bill represents a philosophical shift towards collaborative compliance: regulators act as facilitators rather than enforcers, and citizens are treated as partners rather than suspects.

Critical Evaluation 

Advantages 

• Proportionality: Criminal law is reserved for genuinely culpable conduct. 

• Efficiency: Administrative adjudication reduces court backlogs. 

• Economic benefits: Encourages entrepreneurship and investment. 

Challenges 

• Risk of regulatory dilution: Reduced deterrence may embolden violations in sensitive sectors like pharmaceuticals or food safety. 

• Due process concerns: Administrative adjudication may lack transparency, independence, and procedural safeguards found in courts. 

• Institutional capacity: Effective implementation requires well-trained, adequately resourced regulatory authorities. 

Conclusion and Recommendations

The Jan Vishwas Bill, 2025 marks a bold step in India’s regulatory reform journey. By decriminalising 288 minor offences and shifting towards administrative enforcement, it aligns India with global best practices and promises to reduce litigation burdens while promoting economic dynamism. However, its success depends on:

1. Robust procedural safeguards to protect due process in administrative adjudication. 

2. Calibration of fines to ensure deterrence without over-penalisation. 

3. Capacity-building for regulatory authorities. 

4. Ongoing evaluation of the reform’s impact on compliance, public welfare, and business climate. 

Ultimately, the Bill embodies a recognition that criminal law must be used sparingly and proportionately, while administrative and civil measures should govern technical infractions. If implemented effectively, it can significantly transform India’s legal landscape, fostering a system that is both fairer and more conducive to economic growth. 

This article is authored by Safaa Fellah, Law Student from Morocco and Trainee of Lets Learn Law Legal Research Training Programme. The views and opinions expressed in this piece are solely those of the author.