Context: 

The Rajasthan High Court, in Tejender Pal Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2024), raised concerns about the potential misuse of Section 152 of the BNS to suppress legitimate dissent.

More on the News

• The court emphasized that Section 152 should be applied cautiously to safeguard freedom of speech and expression. 
• While the BNS does not explicitly use “sedition,” Section 152 creates fears of continued misuse under a different label. 
• The provision should not be used to suppress legitimate dissent but should act as a safeguard for national security.
• This comes after, before the enactment of the BNS, the Supreme Court's 2022 decision to suspend trials under Section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) until the government reconsidered the law.
• The high court was hearing a Sikh preacher’s plea to quash an FIR filed against him under section 152 of the BNS after he expressed sympathy on social media with Canadian pro-Khalistan MP Amritpal Singh.

Major criticisms of Section 152 of BNS:

• Vague Terminology:

• Section 152 criminalises acts that “endanger the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India” but fails to define what constitutes such endangerment.
• This vagueness allows for expansive interpretations by authorities, potentially prosecuting individuals for criticizing political or historical figures or expressing controversial opinions.
• Without clear parameters, this provision could be used to suppress dissent.

• Lowered Threshold for Liability:

• The term “knowingly” in Section 152 reduces the standard for determining liability, especially in cases involving social media.
• Sharing a post, even without malicious intent, could lead to prosecution if it is deemed likely to provoke prohibited activities.
• This provision does not require prima facie evidence linking speech to actual consequences, allowing authorities to deprive individuals of liberty without strong justification.
• Similar to the previous sedition law, Section 152 could instill a chilling effect on free speech.

Potential for Abuse:

• The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data shows a high number of arrests under Section 124A of the IPC, with very low conviction rates (12 convictions in 548 arrests between 2015 and 2020).
• Section 152 is broader and more ambiguous than Section 124A, heightening the risk of misuse and creating a chilling effect on free speech.

Judicial Approach to Balancing National Interest and Freedom of Expression:

• In Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962), the Supreme Court restricted sedition to cases involving actual violence or incitement to violence against the government, acknowledging freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
• In Balwant Singh and Another v. State of Punjab (1995), the Court emphasized the need for a direct causal link between speech and its consequences to be considered an offence of sedition.
• In Javed Ahmad Hazam v. State of Maharashtra and Ors (2024), the Court stated that the effect of words should be judged by reasonable, strong-minded individuals, not by those with weak or sensitive minds.

Differences Between Section 152 of the BNS and Section 124A of the IPC

Terminology and Scope:

• Section 152 BNS covers acts threatening the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India, while Section 124A IPC only targets disaffection against the government.

Penalties:

• Section 124A (IPC): Prescribes life imprisonment or a minimum of three years in prison, along with a possible fine.
• Section 152 (BNS): Prescribes a more stringent penalty of life imprisonment or up to seven years, along with a mandatory fine.

Intent Requirement:

• Section 124A (IPC): Requires proof of intent to incite disaffection against the government.
• Section 152 (BNS): Lowers the threshold by allowing prosecution if a person "knowingly" shares information that could incite rebellion or separatism, without needing to prove malicious intent.

Emphasis on National Interests:

• While Section 124A IPC focused on protecting the government from disaffection, Section 152 BNS prioritizes the protection of national interests. It recognizes that threats to sovereignty are not limited to criticism of the government but extend to broader threats against the nation's unity and integrity.

Protection of Dissent:

• Both sections protect lawful dissent, but Section 152 BNS offers a more balanced approach, safeguarding individual freedoms while addressing serious threats to national security.