Many of India's economic regulatory statutes date to the colonial era. Using the Petroleum Act, 1934 as an example, examine the case for modernising and decriminalising such laws without diluting public safety.

The Petroleum Act, 1934 still governs how petroleum is imported, transported, stored, refined and blended in India [2]. The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MoPNG) has released a draft Petroleum (Amendment) Bill, 2026 for public consultation [1]. It tests whether colonial-era laws can be modernised without weakening safety.

Why such statutes need modernising

• Built around criminal punishment: the Act has a separate chapter on penalties and procedure [2]. It was designed for 1930s policing, not for managing compliance today.
• Paperwork treated as crime: minor lapses such as a late licence renewal go through criminal procedure. This clogs the courts and invites bribes.
• Unclear accountability: MoPNG amends the law, but the body that enforces it, PESO (Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation), reports to the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) [4].

The case for decriminalisation

• A tested template: the Jan Vishwas Act, 2023 decriminalised 183 provisions in 42 Central Acts [3]. The 2026 Bill extends this to 80 Acts, with warnings for early lapses and a 10% rise in penalties every three years [5].
• Faster and more certain deterrence: the Oilfields amendment replaced jail with a ₹25 lakh penalty, plus up to ₹10 lakh for each day a violation continues [6]. A Joint Secretary-rank officer decides the penalty, and appeals go to the PNGRB Appellate Tribunal [6]. Daily fines push firms to fix problems quickly.
• Ease of doing business: PESO already offers digital licensing through the National Single Window System, with fixed service timelines [7]. A modern penalty regime would match these reforms.

Safeguards so that safety is not diluted

• Enforcement is the weak link: the Paravoor fireworks disaster exposed a lack of effective enforcement of the Explosives Rules, 2008, including ignored safety distances [8]. Softer penalties combined with weak inspections would raise the risk.
• Graded offences: give warnings only for procedural lapses. Keep criminal liability for unlicensed storage and breaches of safety distances.
• Clear liability: PESO relies on private "Competent Persons" for third-party inspections [7]. The amendment should settle who is responsible if one of them clears an unsafe site.

Modernising the Petroleum Act means setting penalties at the right level for each offence; it does not mean choosing business over safety. The best model has three parts: civil penalties for procedural lapses, criminal liability for acts that create a risk of fire or explosion, and a well-staffed PESO to enforce both. This would support trust-based governance and protect the right to life under Article 21, keeping compliance balanced with public safety [4].