News: The Supreme Court has asked if “potentiality of abuse” by the state of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which punishes “acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India”, could be a ground to declare the law itself unconstitutional.
About Section 152 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
- Section 152 of the BNS, 2023 deals with “acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.”
- It replaces section 124A (“sedition”) of the Indian Penal Code, with some key changes and points of continuity.
- Key provisions
- Acts covered: It criminalizes any act done purposely or knowingly – by words (spoken or written), signs, visible representations, electronic communication, financial means, or otherwise, that:
- Excites or attempts to excite secession or armed rebellion;
- Incites or attempts to incite subversive activities;
- Encourages separatist activities;
- Or otherwise endangers the sovereignty, unity, or integrity of India.
- Means of Commission: The law is wide, covering not just physical acts, but also speech, writings, electronic media, and financial facilitation.
- Punishments
- Imprisonment and fine: Life imprisonment or imprisonment which may extend up to 7 years and also liable to fine.
- Cognizable and non-bailable: The offence is cognizable and non-bailable, tried by a Court of Session.
- Acts covered: It criminalizes any act done purposely or knowingly – by words (spoken or written), signs, visible representations, electronic communication, financial means, or otherwise, that:
- Arguments in favour: The new law addresses colonial hangover, shifting focus from acts against government to acts undermining the nation’s integrity and security.
- Argument against: While the BNS does not explicitly mention sedition, the vague language and broad scope of Section 152 could effectively criminalize legitimate dissent and criticism, much like its predecessor Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
- Judicial review and debate:
- Courts have cautioned about the vagueness of terms such as “subversive activities” and risk of misuse.
- The Courts have been emphasizing the requirement of direct incitement and imminent threat for invocation of this law.
- Landmark cases
- Tejender Pal Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2024): The Rajasthan High Court quashed charges under Section 152 for lack of clear incitement to rebellion, reinforcing the line between legitimate dissent and criminal acts.
- Recently, Supreme Court has said that the acts which come within Section 152, would be covered by the ratio of the Kedar Nath Singh verdict that unless there is a clear threat to unity and sovereignty, the offence [of sedition] need not be attracted.
