Criminal law is a Concurrent List subject — analyse the Centre-State coordination challenges in rolling out BNS, BNSS and BSA uniformly across India.

Criminal law, criminal procedure and evidence fall under Entries 1–3 of the Concurrent List, but "public order" and "police" are State subjects (List II). So while Parliament enacted the BNS, BNSS and BSA — in force from 1 July 2024 — the machinery that must deliver them is State-owned. Uniform rollout therefore rests on cooperation, not command, and that is where the friction lies.

Rule-making and legislative asymmetry

• Concurrent competence lets States frame their own rules, SOPs and even amendments, risking divergent procedure across jurisdictions.
• To pre-empt this, MHA and the National Judicial Academy, Bhopal drafted model rules and SOPs for the new technology provisions [4] — a persuasive, not binding, instrument.

Capacity-building devolves to States

• BPR&D supplies 13 training modules and master trainers, but actual training is executed by States/UTs — over 8.4 lakh officials, including 8.16 lakh police personnel, trained so far [1].
• Unequal police budgets, vacancies and training infrastructure make quality, not headcount, the uneven variable.

Technology and forensic infrastructure

• e-Sakshya, e-Summon, Nyaya Shruti and Nyaya Setu need State police to onboard investigating officers, plus connectivity and forensic labs [2].
• Compliance had to be driven by State-specific deadlines — Goa was directed to register all IOs on e-Sakshya and complete e-Summon rollout by a fixed date [3].

Five pillars, divided control

• Police, prisons, prosecution and forensics answer to the State executive; courts to the High Courts. No single authority can synchronise them.
• The Centre's response has been review meetings with CMs and LGs and NCRB-level monitoring [5][3] — persuasion substituting for hierarchy.

The challenges are thus of capacity and coordination rather than constitutional competence. Convergence of State rules on MHA's model SOPs, sustained forensic and connectivity funding, and institutionalising the review mechanism as a standing Centre-State forum can carry the reform forward — making the new codes a working example of cooperative federalism rather than a centrally announced one.