Font size:
Print
Concerns over Section 152 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Can’t Strike Down a Law Over Misuse: SC Issues Strong Clarification
Context: The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which replaces the sedition law in the IPC, clarifying that a law cannot be invalidated solely due to its potential for misuse.
What is Sedition?
Sedition refers to acts, speech, or publications that incite hatred, disaffection, or disloyalty towards the government, potentially leading to public disorder or threats to sovereignty. It was introduced in 1870 under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the British to curb nationalist movements.
- Static Provision (Pre-2024): Punishable with imprisonment up to life.
- Judicial Interpretation: In Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962), the Supreme Court upheld sedition’s constitutionality but restricted its scope to acts involving “incitement to violence” or “public disorder,” aligning it with Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
How was it used in post-independent India, and what is the stance of the judiciary?
-
Post-Independence Use
-
-
- Criticism: Civil society and media reports noted misuse against journalists, activists, and political dissenters, often without proven violence.
- Data: NCRB data shows an increase in sedition cases between 2014-2020, but with low conviction rates, indicating possible overreach.
-
-
Judicial Stance
-
- In May 2022, the SC in SG Vombatkere vs Union of India kept all pending sedition cases in abeyance, recognising concerns of vagueness and misuse.
- In Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015), the Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for vagueness, establishing that unclear laws can have a “chilling effect” on free speech.
Should Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita be ruled down?
-
Section 152 Overview
-
-
- Replaces Section 124A IPC in the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), in force from July 1, 2024.
- Criminalises acts “endangering sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India” through words (spoken/written), symbols, or other means, with an explanatory clause.
-
-
Arguments Against
-
-
- Similarity to Sedition: Critics, including senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, argue it mirrors old sedition provisions, enabling misuse against journalists.
- Vagueness: Petitioner SG Vombatkere contends the provision’s sweeping language—covering even symbolic or financial acts—fails the constitutional test of precision, risking a chilling effect on dissent.
- Freedom of Speech Impact: Economic Survey 2022-23 highlighted the role of robust public debate in governance; vague penal provisions could undermine this.
-
-
Arguments For
-
- National Security Need: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued the law targets only clear threats to sovereignty and includes explanatory safeguards.
- Legislative Power: SC observed that misuse is an enforcement issue, not necessarily a legislative flaw, unless vagueness or constitutional violation is proven.
