Why in News: Senior journalists Karan Thapar and Siddharth Varadarajan were summoned by Assam Police under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) on charges of undermining national security through articles and interviews. Critics say this provision is “sedition in a new form,” Sedition Abolished, but Revived in New Clothing
Sedition Abolished, but Revived in New Clothing
- The colonial IPC Section 124A (sedition) was removed in the BNS.
- However, Section 152 BNS criminalises: exciting secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities, separatist feelings, or any act endangering the sovereignty, unity, or integrity of India.
- Punishment: life imprisonment — making it even harsher than the repealed sedition law.
- Critics term it “sedition in sheep’s clothing”, since its broad wording enables arbitrary interpretation of dissent as a threat to sovereignty.
Constitutional & Legal Concerns
- Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of Speech – dissent, even harsh criticism of government policy, is constitutionally protected.
- Article 19(2): Reasonable Restrictions – sovereignty, integrity, security of the State are grounds, but require direct, imminent threat (as per SC in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 2015).
- Section 152 BNS’s vagueness → allows subjective interpretation, risking violation of Article 14 (arbitrariness) and Article 19(1)(g) (right to occupation, especially for journalists).
Judicial precedents:
- Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962): Sedition only if incitement to violence or public disorder.
- Shreya Singhal (2015): Vague and overbroad restrictions unconstitutional.
- By ignoring this jurisprudence, Section 152 risks being struck down by the Court.
Impact on Press Freedom
(a) Chilling Effect
- Journalists summoned for “undermining sovereignty” merely for critical interviews.
- Creates self-censorship in media debates, eroding democratic discourse.
(b) Financial and Procedural Harassment
- Summons in distant states like Assam impose huge costs on journalists (travel, lodging, legal expenses).
- The process becomes punishment even if acquitted.
- Ordinary citizens cannot afford such litigation, discouraging them from exercising free speech.
(c) Weaponisation of National Security
- Dissent conflated with “strategic subversion”.
- Any critical opinion risks being labelled as provoking unrest.
- Journalists like Abhisar Sharma also summoned under Section 152 for portraying governance as corrupt/communal.
Accountability Gaps in Policing
- Police not bound by accountability jurisprudence → misuse without consequence.
- Example: innocents spent 18 years in jail in Mumbai under wrongful accusations.
- Despite SC judgment (Youth Bar Association of India, 2016) requiring FIR copies to be shared, journalists denied copies of FIRs for days.
- Reflects systemic impunity and arbitrariness in investigative processes.
Technology, Alternatives, and Neglect
- Summons demand physical presence though video conferencing is viable.
- Precedent: Delhi LG’s order allows cross-examination of police officers via video in trials.
- Questioning via video ensures transparency, cost reduction, and recording of proceedings.
- Ignoring such options highlights intent to harass rather than investigate fairly.
Democratic & Societal Implications
- Press freedom is a fourth pillar of democracy. Suppressing it damages India’s global image as a democracy.
- Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has already ranked India poorly in World Press Freedom Index (2024: Rank 159/180).
- Section 152 may further deteriorate India’s democratic credentials.
- Fear among intellectuals → Former R&AW chiefs, defence analysts, public intellectuals could be roped into cases for expressing opinions.
Key Questions Raised
1. Constitutional validity: Should Section 152 BNS remain on statute books given its resemblance to sedition?
2. Rule of law: Why are police ignoring SC-mandated safeguards like providing FIR copies?
3. State accountability: Should the State bear costs of unjust summons when accused is presumed innocent?
Way Forward
- Judicial Review: SC must define boundaries of Section 152 to align it with Kedar Nath and Shreya Singhal principles.
- Parliamentary Oversight: Lawmakers must clarify definitions to distinguish dissent from secession.
- Police Accountability: Compensation mechanisms and disciplinary measures against misuse.
- Procedural Safeguards: Mandate video conferencing for questioning; ensure FIR copies are provided promptly.
- Protecting Journalists: Special legislation or guidelines to prevent harassment under vague charges.
UPSC Relevance
GS Paper II (Polity & Governance)
- Fundamental Rights
Mains Practice Question
Q1. The replacement of sedition with Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) has revived debates on freedom of the press and national security. Critically examine the constitutional, legal, and democratic implications of this provision, citing recent developments. (250 words)
