Rajasthan HC Flags Concerns Over Reintroduction of Sedition Under BNS Section 152
GG News Bureau
Jaipur, 23rd Dec. The Rajasthan High Court has raised concerns about Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), stating it appears to reintroduce the scrapped sedition law under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Justice Arun Monga observed that the provision, introduced with the BNS on July 1, 2024, criminalizes acts that threaten national stability, but could potentially stifle legitimate dissent.
During a hearing on a plea by a Sikh preacher seeking the quashing of an FIR against him, Justice Monga remarked, “Prima facie, it appears to be rather reintroducing Section 124A (sedition) by another name.” The preacher had faced charges under Section 152 for a Facebook video expressing support for Canadian pro-Khalistan MP Amritpal Singh.
The court cautioned against the misuse of Section 152, emphasizing the need for its application to align with the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression. “Legitimate dissent or criticism cannot be equated with sedition or anti-national acts,” Justice Monga stated. He stressed that there must be a clear and direct link between the speech and the likelihood of rebellion, secession, or violence to invoke the provision.
Acknowledging the provision’s balance between national security and individual rights, the court remarked, “The explanatory provision balances national security with individual rights, ensuring that lawful political dissent is not stifled under the pretext of maintaining sovereignty.”
The judge also pointed out similarities between Section 152 and the now-repealed Section 124A, noting, “It is debatable which of the two provisions—sedition under the IPC or its reintroduced form under the BNS—is more stringent.”
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita replaced the IPC earlier this year, with Section 152 titled “Act endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.” While the government maintains that it has abolished sedition laws, opposition parties have criticized the provision as a “vague replica” of the old law, leaving room for potential misuse.
The High Court’s observations add to the ongoing debate over the BNS, with legal experts and civil rights groups urging clarity and safeguards to prevent the provision from being wielded against dissenting voices.
Comments are closed.