In the very same report:

Presenting the report to deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani, who holds the home portfolio, Malimath said the changes were proposed for the first time in 150 years. He also recommended that from now on, criminal laws be reviewed every 15 years so that they are in tune with the ‘changing times.’

Why only criminal laws? Hellooo, Earth to Malimath, if we are talking about laws inapplicable for their times, then Indian telecom is still governed by the 1885 Telegraph Act, inspite of a century of change. How about changing that first?

In fact, there’s a reason criminal laws change little. Criminal law covers the most primal of offences: indeed very basic ones — murder, rape and thievery have been with us since millennia. Indeed, modern criminal law merely codifies ancient religious ‘thou shalt not steal’-style commandments. Updates to criminal law in response to modern technology happens, but only once in a while when a technological change is profound enough to enable criminal behavior: for example, in some societies, the technology of ultrasound may bring about a law that makes aborting a fetus based on a ultrasound sex-test a criminal act. The communications revolution may cause stealing passwords and PINs to be treated equivalently to stealing cash.

But, despite technology rah-rahs, technological revolutions do not happen on schedule every two decades, and nothing suggests to me why a compulsory 15-year review of criminal law is necessary, or indeed preferable over the normal day-to-day working of a functioning parliament. Indeed, the British parliamentary model, which we follow, allows for a living constitution that makes such periodic review un-necessary for criminal as well as civil law.