Similar fears extend to worker safety and labour rights. A company faced with the choice between costly safety upgrades and paying a fine may choose the latter, effectively “paying to endanger” its workers. In such cases, monetary penalties could fail to serve as a meaningful deterrent, particularly when weighed against the potential profits at stake. The bill’s selective coverage is another weakness. It addresses 16 central laws, but there remain thousands of statutes across diverse sectors from mining to plantations that still carry criminal penalties for minor administrative violations. Without a comprehensive review of all such laws, the reforms risk being piecemeal, leaving large gaps in the regulatory architecture.
Critics also highlight the dangers of shifting adjudication from courts to administrative officers. While this may speed up enforcement, it risks creating a less transparent system vulnerable to discretion and corruption. Decisions that should be based on legal principles could instead be influenced by administrative convenience or worse, personal biases. For foreign investors, this may reduce clarity rather than enhance it. Transparency and predictability are central to trust in governance, and any perception of opacity could undermine the bill’s stated goals.
The government appears to be betting on the idea that monetary penalties, if substantial and strictly enforced, can prove more effective than jail time. Many repeat offenders, especially those unfazed by short prison terms, may think twice when faced with the prospect of hefty financial losses. By embedding automatic revisions of fines every three years to account for inflation, the bill also ensures that penalties retain their sting over time rather than becoming outdated and ineffective.
The effectiveness of the “warn, correct, and then penalize” model, however, depends heavily on enforcement. A warning only makes sense if subsequent violations are closely monitored and punished without exceptions. If fines are not diligently imposed, or if enforcement is lax, the deterrent effect will collapse, leaving the system weaker than before.
In our view, the Jan Vishwas Bill 2.0 is a bold step in the right direction, but it is no panacea. By reducing the criminalisation of technical errors, it lowers barriers for small entrepreneurs and signals trust in citizens. Yet, unless its implementation is matched with robust oversight and expansion to cover more laws, it risks replacing one set of inefficiencies with another. The bill must not be seen as a final destination but as a crucial beginning in a broader journey of reform.
(The author is Assistant Professor, Shyam Lal College (M), University of Delhi/ Visiting Sr. Fellow, Pahle India Foundation, Delhi. Views are personal.)