Source: The post Press freedom faces threats under misuse of new law has been created, based on the article “The dangerous wiring together of a ‘conspiracy’” published in “The Hindu” on 26th August 2025. Press freedom faces threats under misuse of new law.
UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 2- Constitution of India —significant provisions and basic structure And Structure, organisation and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary.
Context: The FIR filed in Assam against journalists Karan Thapar and Siddharth Varadarajan has sparked serious debate. It raises concerns about the misuse of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) to suppress free speech. The case reflects wider threats to press freedom, police accountability, and respect for judicial mandates in India.
For detailed information on New Sedition Law (Section 152) – Issues & Way Forward read this article here
The FIR and Its Basis
- Accusations and Targets: The FIR, lodged on May 9, 2025, in Guwahati, accuses the two journalists of provoking unrest, undermining national security, and spreading hostile narratives. The charges stem from articles and video interviews published by The Wire.
- Weakness of the Case: The complaint is largely an expression of opinion. It took the Crime Branch three months to act and summon the accused on August 12, 2025. The Supreme Court has barred coercive action, but the summons itself creates intimidation.
- Judicial Recognition of Press Freedom: The case recalls the 1950 Romesh Thappar ruling, where the Supreme Court recognised freedom of the press as essential to democracy. The present developments stand in sharp contrast to that principle.
Sedition Disguised in New Law
- Section 152 of the BNS: Although sedition is removed, Section 152 introduces the offence of endangering sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India. It covers attempts to excite secession, rebellion, or separatist activity and provides for life imprisonment.
- Ambiguity in Application: The terms “sovereignty and integrity” in Article 19 relate to the breakup of the nation, nothing less. Mere criticism or radical views cannot amount to such an offence. Yet, the law’s wording allows wide and dangerous interpretation.
- Constitutional Questions: The validity of Section 152 is uncertain. A Constitution Bench must decide its constitutionality. Until then, its misuse continues to pose risks to freedom of expression.
Consequences of Police Summons
- Freezing Effect on Expression: The earlier “chilling effect” of sedition has turned into a freezing effect. Any journalist or citizen critical of government policy risks being accused of undermining national security. This threat bulldozes dissent and silences debate.
- Financial and Practical Burden: Defending against frivolous cases is expensive. Legal fees, travel, and lodging add up. Journalists must travel to Guwahati, face repeated questioning, and bear heavy costs. Police officers face no accountability for such harassment.
- Need for Alternatives: Video conferencing offers a fairer method of questioning. It saves costs, ensures recording of questions and answers, and prevents false claims of non-cooperation. Delhi has already allowed cross-examination of police officers via video calls. The same method should apply to accused journalists.
Harassment Through Process
- Weaponisation of Section 152: The summons to Abhisar Sharma for portraying the state as corrupt and illegitimate shows how the law is being weaponised. Though sedition is deleted, its essence survives in harsher form.
- Defiance of Court Orders: The Supreme Court in Youth Bar Association of India (2016) and the Karnataka High Court (2024) held that accused persons must get FIR copies. Yet, both Thapar and Varadarajan failed to obtain it for over a week. The police acted with impunity and disregard for the law.
- Expanding the Scope: The investigation may widen to include former intelligence officials, senior journalists, and defence experts linked to the interviews. This possibility threatens to expand harassment to a much larger circle.
Questions of Accountability
- Respect for Law and Rights: Denying FIR copies and misusing summons shows disregard for due process. An accused must know the allegations against them. Ignoring this principle reflects arrogance and negligence.
- Larger Implications: The misuse of Section 152 undermines institutions and democracy. Three questions remain urgent: Should Section 152 remain in law? Should police be compelled to follow legal mandates? And, should the state be held accountable for violating rights?
Question for practice:
Examine the implications of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita on press freedom and accountability in India.
