India’s efforts to enhance ease of doing business have been gradually gaining momentum. A key objective in this regard is to streamline compliance requirements and reduce the burden on the judicial system. To this end, India has prioritised the decriminalisation of minor or technical violations, aiming to alleviate the volume of criminal cases that clog the courts. Over the past five years, this drive has led to amendments across more than 200 provisions in over 50 statutes, replacing imprisonment with monetary penalties for minor offences.

At the same time, Indian policymakers have complemented this decriminalisation initiative with targeted new offences in emerging digital ecosystems. This dual approach – reducing penal provisions for low-risk offences while maintaining strict accountability in high-risk, technology-driven sectors – reflects a deliberate recalibration of India’s regulatory framework. In this article, the authors analyse the trends and implications of India’s decriminalisation efforts alongside the regulation of emerging digital domains.

Jan Vishwas 1.0: decriminalising minor offences

In recent years, India has pursued the principle of “minimum government, maximum governance”. A critical step in enhancing ease of doing business has been the decriminalisation of minor, technical, or procedural offences, particularly within the corporate and commercial regulatory spheres.

Decriminalisation replaces the threat of imprisonment with monetary penalties, while the underlying conduct may still be subject to regulation. By removing minor infractions from the criminal justice system, decriminalisation reduces court burdens, mitigates business risk, and improves investor confidence through faster administrative resolution. This step is significant in light of the substantial criminal caseload pending before all levels of courts in India: approximately 18,500 criminal cases in the Supreme Court, around 1,912,500 criminal cases in the High Courts, and over 35 million criminal cases in lower courts.

The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 (“JV Act”) exemplifies this decriminalisation effort. It amended 183 provisions across 42 central laws. Key reforms included replacing imprisonment with monetary penalties for minor, technical or procedural offences, rationalising fines, enabling compounding, and strengthening adjudication mechanisms. Enforcement has thus become quicker and more predictable, without compromising core regulatory objectives such as consumer protection, public safety, and environmental standards. For example, under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, any person operating in any industry or handling hazardous substances could be punished with imprisonment of up to five years if the emission or discharge of environmental pollutants was in excess of the prescribed standards. The JV Act decriminalised this violation and it is now punishable with a monetary penalty of up to INR1.5 million (approximately USD17,000) per breach.

The legislation reflects a broader shift towards trust-based governance. Streamlined compliance processes and dedicated adjudication mechanisms aim to reduce fear-driven, procedural bottlenecks. At the same time, deterrence is preserved through graded monetary penalties, periodic upward revisions, and retention of criminal sanctions for wilful, harmful, or egregious offences. The resulting regulatory ecosystem is more predictable and conducive to enterprise and innovation while maintaining accountability.

Jan Vishwas 1.0 complements earlier reforms, including amendments to the Companies Act, 2013, and the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, as well as the repeal of redundant or colonial-era laws. Collectively, these initiatives have significantly lowered regulatory friction and the cost of doing business in India.

Jan Vishwas 2.0: broadening decriminalisation and simplifying compliance

Building on the success of the JV Act, the Indian government introduced the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2025 (JV2), in Parliament in September 2025. JV2 aims to extend decriminalisation, streamline procedures, and make compliance technology-driven.

JV2 proposes amendments to 355 provisions across 16 statutes, with the dual objective of enhancing both ease of doing business and “ease of living”. For instance, minor procedural violations under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, would attract monetary penalties rather than imprisonment, benefiting businesses of all sizes as well as individuals.

JV2 strengthens the trust-based approach: first-time contraventions for 76 offences would result in warnings or advisories, while repeat violations would attract graded monetary penalties. Designated officers would adjudicate penalties administratively, reducing court involvement. Periodic upward revisions of fines – 10% every three years – ensure penalties remain proportionate without repeated legislative amendments.

Extending the benefits of decriminalisation

The stated objective of both the JV Act and JV2 is to reduce pendency in criminal courts. The Joint Parliamentary Committee, in its March 2023 report on the JV Act, had recommended that the government should “endeavour” to bring the amendments proposed in the law with “retrospective effect for abating pending legal proceedings in respect of offences being decriminalised”.

However, Section 4 of the JV Act and the proposed JV2 expressly prohibit retrospective application. Consequently, decriminalised provisions apply only to violations occurring after the amendments’ enactment, leaving ongoing prosecutions unaffected. In other words, the lower punishment pursuant to the amendments will apply only to violations which occur after the amendment and the benefit of decriminalisation will not be available in ongoing prosecutions or investigations where the violations were committed before the amendments came into effect. This limits the potential impact on judicial pendency and denies relief to those facing charges for minor offences committed prior to the amendments. Individuals and businesses still have to go through criminal prosecution, even though the law stands beneficially amended and those offences would now lead to only a monetary penalty. This express prohibition on retrospective application neither helps reduce the number of pending cases in courts, nor does it give relief to people who committed minor offences before the law changed.

The Indian Parliament may consider Indian case laws which interpret Article 20 of the Indian Constitution to extend the benefit of lower punishment to pending cases. While laws are generally presumed to apply prospectively, courts have clarified that beneficial amendments can be applied retrospectively unless the legislature expressly states otherwise. The Supreme Court has held that while laws increasing punishment cannot apply retrospectively, laws reducing punishment may do so unless expressly prohibited. This principle, rooted in beneficial construction and fairness, means that the benefit of reduced punishment introduced through the decriminalisation of an offence should be extended to individuals whose cases are pending investigation or trial, even if the offence occurred before the amendment.

The Madras High Court has applied the principle of ex post facto applicability of beneficial legislation to prosecutions under the Companies Act, in the context of various provisions which stood decriminalised by way of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2020, and subsequent amendments. Courts have extended the benefit of decriminalisation under various laws, where imprisonment for minor contraventions was replaced with monetary penalties, even though the violation occurred prior to the amendment. Legislative reforms and beneficial court rulings have extended the benefits of decriminalisation under laws such as the Companies Act, 2013, the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act, 2024, even for violations occurring prior to the amendments. Courts have been able to extend the benefit of decriminalisation to pending cases because those amendments did not contain an express prohibition to retrospective applicability akin to Section 4 of the JV Act and the proposed JV2.

Recently, the Delhi High Court in the case of “CTM India & Anr. v Registrar of Companies” (Crl. M. C. 4535/2022) recognised this trend in the context of violations relating to corporate social responsibility obligations under the Companies Act, 2013, which stood decriminalised by way of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2020. Criminal sanctions were substituted with monetary penalties for certain offences without any express bar on retrospective applicability. Consequently, the Delhi High Court interpreted the amendments favourably and extended the benefit even though the violation was prior to the amendment by quashing the criminal prosecution and transferring the violation to the competent authority for penalty proceedings.

The issue still remains that courts have recognised that such retrospective applicability of beneficial amendments can extend ex post facto, however, the said power to apply the amended law retrospectively is available to courts only when there is no express bar on retrospective application. Instead of providing for an express bar, the legislature’s silence on retrospective applicability would have, at least, enabled courts to adopt a beneficial interpretation and extend the benefit of legislation like the JV Act and the proposed JV2 to pending prosecutions, on a case-by-case basis.

To maximise the impact of the JV Act and JV2, the Indian government may consider amending Section 4 to allow retrospective application of decriminalised provisions. Doing so would accelerate the resolution of longstanding cases, reduce judicial burden, and strengthen India’s trust-based governance model. This will enable litigants and courts to avail the benefit of decriminalisation for technical, minor, or compliance-based infractions, and get the same compounded or otherwise disposed of, without protracted trials.

New offences in the digital era

While decriminalisation continues for minor offences, India is simultaneously expanding regulatory oversight in emerging digital domains. Another trend that is being witnessed in India is the increasing regulatory scope over digital token payments, taxation, and reporting obligations on such transactions as well as online betting and gambling. The Indian regulatory authorities have increased the number of investigations into cryptocurrency exchanges and even online betting and gambling apps.

The Indian government has introduced a new statute, ie, the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 (“Online Gaming Act”) to regulate the entire online gaming ecosystem. For the first time, the Online Gaming Act criminalises any game offered on the internet where players deposit money or something of value with the expectation of winning more money or prizes, defined as an “Online Money Game”. The Online Gaming Act has created a new offence in relation to actions which enable, operate, or facilitate any Online Money Game service. Offerings by platforms such as Pokerbaazi and Dream11 which include real money, ie, an Online Money Game service, are now illegal even though such offerings and services were completely legal prior to the Online Gaming Act. The new offences created by the Online Gaming Act which are punishable with imprisonment for the first time are as follows.

• Offering or abetting in the offering of any Online Money Game – it is now an offence to offer any game which requires a fee or deposit of money in return for the expectation of winning any stake. This includes card games such as poker and sports betting. It is punishable with imprisonment of up to three years. A repeat conviction for this offence is punishable with imprisonment of three to five years.
• Advertisement of any Online Money Game – it is now an offence to participate in advertising any Online Money Game offerings, including through direct participation like promotional activities or indirect participation such as hosting adverts of Online Money Games on a digital platform. This is punishable with imprisonment of up to two years. A repeat conviction for this offence is punishable with imprisonment of two to three years.
• Facilitating transfer of funds – it is now an offence to facilitate any transaction of funds which are used to pay for any Online Money Game offerings. This covers banks and financial intermediaries who may offer front-end or back-end services for transferring or remitting funds. It is punishable with imprisonment of up to three years. A repeat conviction for this offence is punishable with imprisonment of three to five years.

If a company commits any of these offences, the company itself and the individuals in charge (such as directors or managers) can be held responsible and punished, unless they can prove the offence happened without their knowledge or despite their best efforts to prevent it.

The Online Gaming Act represents a departure from the decriminalisation trend, introducing stringent criminal sanctions in high-risk digital sectors. Not only has the act of offering services and running platforms for Online Money Games become punishable with imprisonment, but even any involvement with the advertising or transfer of funds can invite penal sanctions. The Online Gaming Act further tightens financial integrity by mandating full adherence to anti-money laundering controls, including KYC and timely reporting of suspicious activity. Crucially, these obligations apply to game operators as well as to the wider ecosystem and impose a criminal sanction of imprisonment on advertisers, app stores, payment intermediaries, media outlets, banks, and financial institutions involved in promoting or facilitating Online Money Games.

Unsurprisingly, the legality of the Online Gaming Act was challenged in three High Courts. The Supreme Court has consolidated the challenges and decided to take up the challenges itself. The constitutionality of the Online Gaming Act is currently under review by the Supreme Court, which will determine whether it is upheld, modified, or struck down.

Conclusion

India’s dual strategy of decriminalising minor offences while imposing strict liability in emerging digital domains reflects a nuanced regulatory philosophy. Decriminalisation under the JV Act and proposed JV2 reduces procedural burdens and enhances predictability, fostering a more business-friendly environment. Simultaneously, new laws in the digital space ensure accountability in high-risk sectors. Retrospective application of beneficial amendments could further amplify the impact, delivering meaningful relief to businesses and individuals, reducing court pendency, and advancing a trust-based governance model.