Last week, the Rajasthan High Court remarked that Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) appears to reintroduce the repealed Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the colonial-era sedition law, under a different guise.
The provision criminalizes acts or attempts that incite secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities, or encourage separatist sentiments that could destabilize the nation. Justice Arun Monga, presiding over a single-judge bench, observed: “Prima facie, it seems to be reintroducing Section 124-A by another name,” as reported by Bar and Bench.
The court further noted that it remains debatable whether the repealed sedition provision or the newly introduced Section 152 is more stringent. Justice Monga emphasized that legitimate dissent or criticism must not be conflated with sedition or anti-national acts.
The observations arose during the hearing of Tejender Pal Singh vs State of Rajasthan, a case in which the petitioner faced charges in July after posting a Facebook video sympathizing with pro-Khalistan MP Amritpal Singh.
On July 1, the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and the Evidence Act were replaced by the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), respectively, under the Narendra Modi government.
These remarks challenge Prime Minister Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s claims that their government has abolished the sedition law. At an August event inaugurating the National Conference of District Judiciary, Modi stated, “Our criminal laws are now free from colonial influence. British laws like sedition have been scrapped.”
While introducing the bills in Parliament, Union Home Minister Shah asserted: “We are fully repealing sedition. Everyone has the right to express their opinions.”
However, Justice Monga highlighted that Section 152 of the BNS mirrors the language of the IPC’s Section 124-A. Section 152 penalizes anyone who “knowingly or purposely by words, spoken or written, signs, visible representation, electronic communication, or financial means excites secession, armed rebellion, or subversive activities, or encourages separatist sentiments, or endangers India’s sovereignty or unity.” Violators face life imprisonment or a term extending up to seven years, along with a fine.
The court remarked that under the repealed Section 124-A, casual or rhetorical statements did not constitute sedition unless they incited violence or public disorder. It reaffirmed that legitimate political dissent cannot be equated with sedition or anti-national behavior.
Justice Monga noted that an explanation in Section 152 of the BNS provides safeguards, balancing national security with individual rights. He observed that this explanatory provision ensures lawful political dissent is not suppressed under the guise of maintaining sovereignty.
The sedition law, introduced in 1870, was historically used against freedom fighters such as Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi. In recent years, controversies around the law reignited when figures like author Arundhati Roy (2012) and cartoonist Aseem Trivedi were charged under Section 124-A for comments on Kashmir and satirical cartoons, respectively.
