Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita has replaced the word ‘sedition’ but not its constitutional concerns.” Examine in light of Article 19(1)(a) and relevant judicial standards.

The Constituent Assembly deliberately excluded "sedition" from Art. 19(2)'s list of permissible restrictions on free speech recognising that sedition-type provisions are incompatible with democratic dissent. Section 124A IPC persisted for 75 years despite this deliberate exclusion, until the Supreme Court stayed all FIRs under it in May 2022 pending constitutional review.

Pre BNS Sedition law:

• Section 124A IPC:
  • Criminalised "disaffection" toward the government including hatred, contempt, or exciting disaffection
  • Maximum punishment: life imprisonment
  • No requirement of actual violence or incitement to violence. A mere "disaffection" was sufficient
• Constitutional concerns identified by courts:
  • Vagueness: "disaffection" was never statutorily defined
  • Overbreadth: the provision swept in legitimate criticism, satire, journalism, and academic commentary alongside actual incitement to violence.
  • Chilling effect: the threat of sedition prosecution caused self-censorship among journalists, academics, activists, and Opposition politicians
  • Process as punishment: the legal process itself — FIR, arrest, bail conditions, multiple hearing dates across cities Hence in S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India (2022) SC stayed all FIRs under Section 124A pending constitutional review (Doctrine of Eclipse). Coincidentally the parliament revamped the criminal law by replacing IPC by Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and expectations were high.

Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita replacing the word 'sedition'

• Text of Section 152 BNS :
  • Criminalises any act that "excites or attempts to excite secession, armed rebellion or subversive activities, or encourages feelings of separatist activities or endangers the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India"
  • Punishment: up to 7 years or life imprisonment
  • The word "sedition" does not appear anywhere
  • Section 124A IPC is formally repealed
• What changed:
  • The word "sedition" and the colonial framing of "disaffection toward the government" are gone
  • The punishment range is clarified (up to 7 years or life)
  • The provision is now in a new criminal code with updated procedural architecture (BNSS) Yet a closer constitutional examination revealed that the legislative surgery was cosmetic rather than curative. Although the word "sedition" was removed, the constitutional pathology it contained was transplanted wholesale into Section 152.

Constitutional concerns still replicated by BNS S152:

• No definition of "subversive activities" — as undefined as "disaffection"
• No definition of "encourages feelings of separatist activities" — broader than the old "disaffection"
• No requirement of actual or imminent violence — "encourages feelings" criminalises ideational expression
• No prior government sanction requirement — any police officer can register FIR without executive or judicial pre-authorisation
• No distinction between discussion/advocacy and incitement — Shreya Singhal's triad is absent from the provision's text What the SC Must Do and Parliament Should Do
• SC must read Section 152 narrowly using Kedar Nath's incitement standard
• Parliament should Define "subversive activities" and "separatist feelings" with statutory precision adopting the Kedar Nath incitement standard as the explicit statutory threshold