Sedition as a colonial-era offence has been suspended by the Supreme Court but reborn in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. With reference to S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India (2022) and Section 152 BNS 2023, critically analyse.

Introduction:

Section 124A IPC, the colonial sedition offence, was upheld with a narrowing construction in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962); the Supreme Court suspended its operation in S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India (11 May 2022); the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 has now replaced it with Section 152, reopening the constitutional question.

Statutory base: IPC Section 124A criminalised words bringing 'hatred or contempt' or 'disaffection' against the government. BNS Section 152 penalises acts 'endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India' — exciting secession, armed rebellion, or subversive activities — with imprisonment up to life. The drafting is broader; the label 'sedition' is dropped but the substance reappears with sharper teeth.

Constitutional test: Article 19(1)(a) speech is restrictable under Article 19(2) only for 'security of the State' — a phrase narrowly construed in Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950). Vombatkere ordered no new FIRs under 124A pending re-examination. Kedar Nath's incitement-to-violence test remains the constitutional floor; Section 152's open-ended 'subversive activities' language risks breaching it.

Reform options: The 22nd Law Commission Report (2023) recommended retaining sedition with procedural safeguards. BNS Section 152 has no prior-sanction filter; the Disha Ravi 2021 FIR pattern remains operationally possible.

Way forward / Conclusion:

Read Section 152 down to the Kedar Nath incitement line through judicial review, and amend the BNSS to require prior sanction by a senior officer before registration — aligning the offence with Article 19(2)'s narrow corridor.