The recent reintroduction of sedition law under the Bhartiya Nyaya Samhita (BNS) has stirred significant debate across legal and political circles. The Rajasthan High Court’s recent observations have amplified these concerns, with many questioning whether the revamped provisions under Section 152 of the BNS are even more stringent than the repealed Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
While the Centre claims the removal of sedition laws, critics argue that the new provisions bear uncanny similarities, raising concerns over potential misuse against dissent.
The Reincarnation of Sedition Law in Bhartiya Nyaya Samhita
The Bhartiya Nyaya Samhita replaces the IPC, seeking to modernise India’s criminal justice system. However, Section 152 of the BNS, which addresses acts endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India, has been likened to the infamous Section 124A of the IPC. The Rajasthan High Court has observed that the wording in both sections is remarkably similar, questioning whether this is a mere rebranding of sedition in law.
Section 124A of the IPC penalised acts that incited hatred or contempt towards the government with imprisonment for life or three years, along with a possible fine. On the other hand, Section 152 of the BNS introduces sterner measures, including a mandatory fine and imprisonment for up to seven years for acts deemed subversive. This raises a pivotal question: Does the new provision aim to safeguard national security, or is it a more potent tool for stifling dissent?
The Rajasthan High Court’s Observations
The Rajasthan High Court, while hearing a plea involving a Sikh preacher charged under Section 152 of the BNS, cautioned against equating legitimate dissent with anti-national acts. Justice Arun Monga remarked that the provision must not be wielded as a “sword against dissent” but as a “shield for national security.” The court also highlighted that there must be a direct and imminent connection between an act and the likelihood of rebellion or secession to invoke such laws under sedition in criminal law.
Further, the court emphasised that sedition law must balance individual freedoms with state security. Citing the explanatory clauses in Section 152, it observed that comments expressing disapproval of governmental policies—if aimed at lawful alteration—should not fall within its purview. This is a crucial safeguard to prevent misuse, but enforcement authorities must exercise restraint to ensure that criticism and dialogue are not criminalised.
Misuse Potential: Repackaging Old Concerns
The High Court’s warning is not without precedent. The sedition clause under the IPC had been notoriously used to suppress political opposition, stifling journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens. In 2022, the Supreme Court suspended Section 124A, acknowledging its misuse and colonial origins. However, Section 152 of the BNS appears to have reintroduced these provisions with broader terminology that includes electronic communications and financial means, potentially expanding the scope for misuse.
Critics argue that the lack of specific guidelines under sedition in criminal law could lead to ambiguity, making enforcement authorities the arbiters of dissent. This raises alarm bells for civil liberties advocates who fear that the new provisions might be wielded more stringently than their predecessor, posing a challenge to criminal justice reform in India.
Balancing National Security and Civil Liberties
Section 152 is framed to protect India’s sovereignty, unity, and integrity, which are undeniably critical. However, its implementation must tread a fine line to uphold democratic principles. The High Court has pointed out that casual or rhetorical statements should not qualify as sedition in law unless they incite violence or public disorder. This perspective underscores the need for judicial oversight to prevent the overreach of law enforcement agencies.
The government has defended the provision, arguing that national security is paramount in an age of misinformation and external threats. Yet, the critique remains: Can national security be achieved without compromising democratic freedoms? The answer lies in the judicious application of the law and robust safeguards against its misuse.
Comparing Section 152 and Section 124A
A comparative analysis reveals significant overlaps between the two sections, but the new law appears more severe in certain respects:
- Punishments: Section 152 prescribes imprisonment for up to seven years, along with a mandatory fine, which is harsher than the three-year term under Section 124A.
- Scope: Section 152 includes provisions for electronic communications and financial transactions, broadening its reach beyond the traditional forms of expression penalised under sedition law.
- Ambiguity: The broader and somewhat vague language of Section 152 could lead to subjective interpretations, increasing the risk of arbitrary arrests and harassment.
A Way Forward
For a thriving democracy like India, dissent and dialogue are essential pillars. While laws addressing secessionist or rebellious acts are necessary, they must not erode fundamental freedoms. The Rajasthan High Court’s directive to exercise restraint and discretion in enforcing sedition law underlines the importance of this balance.
Moreover, public awareness and judicial activism will play critical roles in preventing the misuse of such laws. Advocacy for clearer guidelines and stricter judicial oversight is essential to ensure that criminal justice reforms align with democratic values.
Conclusion
The Bhartiya Nyaya Samhita seeks to modernise India’s legal framework, but the reintroduction of sedition law under Section 152 raises important questions about its intent and application. As the Rajasthan High Court has rightly pointed out, this provision must not become a tool for suppressing dissent. Instead, it should be enforced cautiously, ensuring that it serves as a shield for national security without undermining democratic freedoms.
The coming years will reveal whether this balance can be achieved, shaping the future of sedition in criminal law in India.
Read Also – 5 Unique Career Options You Can Choose After BBA
Important Lessons You Need To Learn From The Justice Yadav Controversy
