The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023(BNS), which came into force on 1 July 2024, omitted the colonial offence of sedition under Section 124A of the IPC and introduced Section 152, dealing with acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.

In 2025, the Supreme Court issued notice on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 152 on the ground that it allegedly reintroduces sedition in a broader form. The matter remains under judicial consideration.

Meaning and Legal Position

Section 124A IPC defined sedition as bringing or attempting to bring hatred, contempt & disaffection towards the Government established by law.
Legal Status: The BNS does not use the word “sedition.” However, Section 152 criminalises specified acts threatening the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.
Core Constitutional Conflict: It involves balancing freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) with the State’s duty to protect sovereignty, national integrity and security, which are recognised grounds for restriction under Article 19(2).

Historical Evolution of Sedition Law

Colonial Origin: The Indian Penal Code (IPC) was drafted by Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800-59) and passed in 1860 by the Legislative Council. However, Section 124A of the IPC, which criminalises ‘disaffection towards the Government established by law’ or sedition, was introduced by British politician and lawyer James Fitzjames Stephen through an amendment in 1870.
The 1898 Amendment: The colonial government amended the provision to include “hatred or contempt” alongside “disaffection”
Use against Freedom Fighters: Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi and other nationalists were prosecuted under the provision. Gandhi described sedition as the “prince among the political sections of the IPC designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen.”
Constituent Assembly: The word “sedition” was deliberately excluded from the grounds for restricting free speech in the Constitution. However, restrictions concerning security of the State and public order were retained.
Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar, 1962: The Supreme Court upheld Section 124A but restricted its operation to speech involving incitement to violence or intention or tendency to create public disorder.
Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995): The Supreme Court held that mere casual raising of slogans a few times against the State without any overt act, which neither evoked any response nor any reaction from anyone in the public, does not attract the provisions of Section l24A of IPC.
Vinod Dua v. Union of India (2021): The Supreme Court reaffirmed Kedar Nath, stating that a citizen has a right to criticize or comment upon the measures undertaken by the Government and its functionaries so long as he does not incite people to violence against the Government established by law or with the intention of creating public disorder
S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India (2022): The Supreme Court, noting that the colonial-era rigours of Section 124A were out of tune with the modern social milieu, directed all State and Central Governments to keep pending trials, investigations, and appeals under Section 124A in abeyance
Law Commission’s 279th Report, 2023: It recommended retaining sedition with safeguards
Replacement under BNS: Section 124A IPC was omitted and Section 152 BNS was introduced with a different focus and terminology.

Legal Framework: Section 124A IPC vs Section 152 BNS

Feature / Aspect	Section 124A IPC (Former Sedition Law)	Section 152 BNS (New Provision)
Official Title & Terminology	Titled "Sedition". Punished anyone who excited "disaffection" against the "Government established by law".	Titled "Act Endangering Sovereignty, Unity and Integrity of India". The word "sedition" is removed.
Core Target	Targeted bringing "hatred or contempt" or exciting disaffection against the ruling government (Rajdroh).	Targets acts endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India (Deshdroh). Secession, armed rebellion, subversive or separatist activities and acts endangering national integrity
Means covered	Words (spoken or written), signs and visible representations	Also expressly includes electronic communication and financial means
Vague Operational Terms	Focused on "disaffection".	Introduces broad terms like "subversive activities," "separatist activities," or encouraging "separatist feelings".
Maximum Alternative Sentence	Imprisonment for life, or an alternative term extending up to three years, and a fine.	Imprisonment for life, or an alternative term extending up to seven years, and a fine.
Procedural Classification	Cognizable and non-bailable; triable by a Court of Sessions.	Cognizable and non-bailable; triable by a Court of Sessions.
Legal Status	Kept in abeyance (frozen) by the Supreme Court since May 2022.	Fully in force since July 1, 2024

Improvement over the Former Sedition Law

Decolonizing the Offense (Rajdroh to Deshdroh)
- The provision protects the sovereignty and integrity of India instead of protecting the government from hatred, contempt or disaffection. Criticism of a government is not equivalent to disloyalty towards the nation.
Express Requirement of Mens Rea
- The act must be committed purposely or knowingly, providing a clearer mental element for establishing criminal liability.
Replacement of Broad Disaffection Standard
- The vague expression “disaffection against the government” has been replaced by relatively specific threats such as secession and armed rebellion, though expressions like “subversive activities” remain undefined.

Need for Section 152

Safeguarding Unity & Integrity
- India faces separatism, insurgency, armed rebellion and externally supported movements that may threaten its territorial and constitutional order.
Changing Nature of Threats
- Digital platforms allow propaganda, recruitment and separatist mobilisation to operate rapidly across jurisdictions.
- The colonial IPC did not anticipate modern digital communication. Expanding the law to cover “electronic communication” ensures the state has the legal tools to address anti-state propaganda, cyber warfare, and online mobilization targeting India’s sovereignty
Financial Networks
- Express inclusion of financial means helps address indirect funding of secessionist or armed activities.
- Organized internal security threats are often sustained by coordinated financial networks. The inclusion of “financial means” allows law enforcement to penalize and freeze funding streams directed toward separatist or subversive acts
Constitutionally Permissible Restriction
- Sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State and public order are valid grounds for restricting speech under Article 19(2).

Concerns and Criticisms of Section 152

Legislative Reforms
- Apply the Kedar Nath Threshold: Section 152 should apply only where there is intention or a clear and proximate tendency to incite violence, armed rebellion or serious public disorder.
  - The statutory text of Section 152 should be amended to explicitly include the phrase “with a tendency to incite violence or cause public disorder”
- Define Ambiguous Terms: Parliament should clearly define “subversive activities,” “separatist activities” and “endangers” to prevent subjective interpretation.
- Periodic Parliamentary Review: Data on cases, arrests, charge sheets, bail and convictions should be presented before Parliament to evaluate necessity, proportionality and misuse.
Judicial Oversight
- Insulating Peaceful Expression: Judges must consistently rule that peaceful political criticism, satire, protest, academic research, and journalistic investigations do not threaten national integrity, even when they strongly offend political authorities or disturb dominant public sentiments
- Ensuring the Right to a Speedy Trial: Since prolonged litigation and pre-trial detention function as punishments in themselves, the courts must strictly enforce the right to a speedy trial, ensuring that accused individuals are not subjected to financial, social, and psychological ruin before their guilt is legally determined
Socio-Institutional Shifts: Fostering Democratic Pluralism
- Promoting Balanced Public Discourse: Media institutions and social media platforms must embrace ethical standards and digital literacy programs to curb sensationalized polarization and public shaming of critical voices. Public education must emphasize the constitutional distinction between criticizing a temporary government and endangering the permanent nation-state.
- Preserving Academic Freedom: Universities and academic institutions must remain protected spaces of critical inquiry and intellectual freedom, allowing students and scholars to debate controversial or unpopular ideas openly without fear of political retaliation or criminal labeling.
- Redefining Patriotism: A healthy democracy requires a societal shift to recognize that dissent is not disloyalty. True democratic patriotism involves active participation in improving the country through critique, accountability, and reform, rather than demanding blind obedience and ideological conformity
Procedural Safeguards against Misuse
- Time Bound Investigation: Strict timelines should prevent prolonged incarceration and ensure that the process itself does not become punishment.
- Police Training and Accountability: Investigating officers should be trained in constitutional free speech standards, with disciplinary consequences for manifestly arbitrary invocation.
- Preliminary Independent Scrutiny: Registration of a case should require written approval from a senior police officer after recording how the conduct threatens sovereignty or national integrity.
- Reasoned FIR: The FIR should identify the prohibited act, the accused’s intention and its proximate connection with violence, rebellion or secession.
Distinguish Advocacy from Incitement: Peaceful advocacy of political change, academic discussion, reporting and criticism must not be equated with incitement to violent secession.
Protect Journalistic and Academic Work: Reporting, research and good faith commentary on separatism, insurgency or conflict should receive explicit protection.

Law Commission on Sedition (279th Report)

It recommended the retention of Section 124A with key modifications
Incorporate Kedar Nath Ratio: The statutory text of Section 124A should be amended to explicitly include the phrase "with a tendency to incite violence or cause public disorder"
Procedural Safeguards (To Prevent Misuse):
- No FIR under Section 124A should be registered unless a police officer (not below the rank of Inspector) conducts a preliminary inquiry within 7 days.
- The FIR can only be registered after the Central or State Government grants permission based on the inquiry report

Case Laws

Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar, 1962: The Supreme Court upheld Section 124A but restricted its operation to speech involving incitement to violence or intention or tendency to create public disorder.
Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995): The Supreme Court held that mere casual raising of slogans a few times against the State without any overt act, which neither evoked any response nor any reaction from anyone in the public, does not attract the provisions of Section 124A of IPC.
Vinod Dua v. Union of India (2021): The Supreme Court reaffirmed Kedar Nath, stating that a citizen has a right to criticize or comment upon the measures undertaken by the Government and its functionaries so long as he does not incite people to violence against the Government established by law or with the intention of creating public disorder
S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India (2022): The Supreme Court, noting that the colonial-era rigours of Section 124A were out of tune with the modern social milieu, directed all State and Central Governments to keep pending trials, investigations, and appeals under Section 124A in abeyance
- Clarification in 2026: The Supreme Court has said that courts can proceed with trials and appeals involving the offence of sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) if the accused had no objection.

Section 152 represents a shift from protecting the government against disaffection to protecting the nation against secession, armed rebellion and threats to its integrity. However, removal of the word “sedition” alone does not eliminate the danger of misuse. Its legitimacy will depend upon narrow interpretation, an incitement based threshold and strong procedural safeguards that protect national security without converting dissent into a crime.

Sample Mains Question

1.“Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita represents a shift from protecting the government against disaffection to protecting the nation against threats to sovereignty and integrity. However, concerns regarding vagueness and misuse remain.” Critically examine. (250 Words, 15 Marks)

Trending Today

✍️ Curated by InclusiveIAS Editorial Team

At InclusiveIAS, our editorial team is led by experts who have successfully cleared multiple stages of the UPSC Civil Services Examination, including Mains and Interview. With deep insights into the demands of the exam, we focus on crafting content that is accurate, exam-relevant, and easy to grasp.

Whether it’s Polity, Current Affairs, GS papers, or Optional subjects, our notes are designed to:

Break down complex topics into simple, structured points
Align strictly with the UPSC syllabus and PYQ trends
Save your time by offering crisp yet comprehensive coverage
Help you score more with smart presentation, keywords, and examples

🟢 Every article, note, and test is not just written—but carefully edited to ensure it helps you study faster, revise better, and write answers like a topper.