In a crucial stride towards legal reform, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs recently submitted its report on three crucial bills — Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. These bills, introduced on August 11, aim to replace the archaic Indian Penal Code, 1860, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, amidst a series of proposed changes, the committee's stance on the death penalty has particularly sparked intense debate and scrutiny. The committee's decision to not align with the progressive concept of abolition of death penalty is a stark departure from the larger global trend. Progressive societies worldwide have argued that the death penalty violates the fundamental right to life, as enshrined in international human rights treaties. Abolitionists contend that state-sanctioned killing is a breach of the inherent right to dignity, a sentiment echoed by many advocating for a more compassionate and humane approach to justice. Critics of the death penalty also emphasise the lack of evidence supporting its effectiveness as a deterrent to crime. Many countries around the world have abolished the death penalty or instituted moratoriums on its use. Experts emphasise on the inherent value of human life and the moral inconsistency of responding to violence with state-sanctioned killing. Abolitionists also highlight the arbitrary and discriminatory application of the death penalty, pointing to factors such as race, socioeconomic status, and quality of legal representation. Despite these concerns, the committee not only refrained from abolishing the death penalty but also expanded its scope, recommending an increase in the number of crimes punishable by death from 11 to 15. The inclusion of offenses such as mob lynching, organised crime, terrorism, and rape of a minor raises questions about the evolving notions of justice and the committee's commitment to progressive change. In a legal framework touted as progressive and a departure from the colonial past, the committee's decision to pass the responsibility of abolishing the death penalty to the Central government is perplexing. This move, rather than addressing a contentious issue head-on, leaves room for discretionary decisions and fails to align with the global movement towards the abolition of capital punishment. Experts and social scientists, who have long argued against the prevalence of the death penalty, find this decision disheartening. The committee, instead of deploying scientific and evidence-based measures to decide on the matter, seems to have erroneously relied on the discretion of the Central government. In this context, it is crucial to recognise that life imprisonment, with appropriate interpretation and focus on rehabilitation, stands as a more humane alternative to the death penalty. Not only does it uphold the right to life and dignity, but it also provides more opportunities for the improvement and reformation of convicted individuals. Beyond the contentious issue of the death penalty, the committee has introduced other provisions, such as the partial retention of Section 377 of the IPC in a gender-neutral form, replacing 'mental illness' with 'unsound mind,' restricting the use of handcuffs against economic offenders, and retaining the offense of adultery. However, opposition leaders argue that despite these changes, approximately 93 per cent of the existing criminal law remains unaltered. They point out that 18 out of 22 chapters have been copied and pasted into the new bills, suggesting that the pre-existing legislation could have been modified more effortlessly to incorporate these specific changes. These arguments raise serious questions about the government's claim of overhauling criminal justice laws. The government must address these concerns transparently and convincingly. Merely copying and pasting existing laws into new bills does little to instil confidence in the process of reforming the criminal justice system. Instead, there is a pressing need for meaningful and effective changes that reflect the evolving notions of justice, human rights, and the global movement towards more progressive legal frameworks. The government should not only justify its claim of overhauling criminal justice laws but also strive to make substantial positive changes that align with the expectations of a modern and just society.