Sedition’s Ghost: Section 152 BNS and the Continuation of a Colonial Legacy

When a law outlives its empire, it becomes a ghost. The Sedition Law, which was formulated by the British Administration to suppress dissent against the Crown, is a ghost that has proven difficult to exorcise.

In the landmark case of S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India ((2022) 7 SCC 433) on May 11, 2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed an order directing the union and state governments to refrain from registering any new First Information Report (F.I.R.) or taking any coercive actions under Section 124A of the IPC (the provision criminalizing sedition) until the review of sedition law is completed.[1]

The re-examination of the sedition law in India culminated in the 279th Law Commission Report. Confounding expectations, the report suggested retaining the provision with proper procedural safeguards. The most consequential question that needs to be examined is:

Whether the report recommendations to retain the law with ‘procedural safeguards’ genuinely modernize the new criminal law or perpetuate the colonial legacy through retaining structural problems under section 152 of BNS.

Colonial Origins: Section 124A IPC and the Silencing of Dissent

The evolution of sedition law through colonial Indian history reflects a deliberate attempt to silence dissent. The uprisings of 1857 transferred the administration from the East India Company to the British Crown. With the aim of suppressing the voices of Indian freedom fighters and permanently securing British imperial rule, the British enacted the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Initially, the law of sedition was proposed by Lord Macaulay in 1837 in the original draft of the Indian Penal Code, defined as any act which incited hatred towards the government and was punished under Section 113 of the IPC. However, for reasons unknown, this provision did not have any mention in the code of 1860. Later, the Sedition Act of 1870 was introduced by Sir James Fitzjames Stephenthrough Amendment Act XVII of 1870 to officially establish sedition law. Eventually, it was added to the code under Section 124A at the suggestion of James Fitzjames Stephen.[2]

Section 124A of the IPC criminalizes sedition as-

“Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment”[3]

The first prosecution under this law can be traced back to Queen-Empress v. Jogendra Chunder Bose (1891), where sedition proceedings were initiated against a magazine editor for merely criticizing the British statute. This reflects the colonial objective of protecting the rulers from public criticism rather than protecting the nation.

Post-Independence Retention and Constitutional Tension

After independence, India eventually retained the Indian Penal Code of 1860 primarily for its functional continuity. With it, the nation inherited a deeply controversial sedition law.

Initially, the draft of the constitution included sedition as a permissible ground for restricting freedom of speech. However, the Constituent Assembly removed it, recognizing that it was incompatible with democratic dissent. Furthermore, this principle was reinforced in the case of Romesh Thappar vs. State of Madras (1950).

In Tara Singh Gopi Chand vs. The State (1950), the court held that Section 124A was unconstitutional and violated Article 19 of the Indian Constitution as it suppresses the freedom of speech and expression.

Nonetheless, these developments were reversed by adding Article 19(2) (first constitutional amendment 1951), which permitted reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech. While there is no explicit mention of the word ‘Sedition’, the amendment effectively reinstated the state’s ability to curtail dissent.[4]

Judicial Treatment: Narrowing the scope

This provision was squarely scrutinized by the courts of India. The Landmark cases are as follows[5]–

• Ram Nandan V. State (1958)

This was one of the first cases to address the legitimacy of the sedition law in India. Allahabad HC held that Section 124A of IPC was ultra vires in character and violated the fundamental right, i.e., Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution.

• Kedar Nath Singh V. State of Bihar (1962)

In this case, SC overruled the judgment of the Allahabad HC. The court upheld Sec 124A as constitutionally valid and stated that no crime of sedition under Section 124A is held unless the remarks, said or written, have the potential of inciting violence, causing disruption/ disturbance of public order through the use of violence.

Relying on the explanations provided under Section 124A, the court distinguished between legitimate criticisms and speech intended to incite violence.

• Balwant Singh And Anr. vs. State of Punjab (1995)

Following the decision of the SC in the Kedar Nath case, the court held that merely raising slogans such as ‘Khalistan Zindabad’, etc., would not constitute sedition unless there is evidence of the occurrence of violence.

This legal stance has been reaffirmed in several cases like Bilal AhmendKaloo V. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997) and Common Cause V. UOI (2018).

Ground Reality: Misuse and Low Conviction Rates

Despite the Supreme Court’s rulings, the chilling effect of this law often overrides the security concerns. This law is often misused by politicians, bureaucrats and government officials.

The stated aim of retaining the law was to ensure the security and integrity of the nation. Nonetheless, it has become a tool of exploitation and suppression of dissent. The table below accurately depicts the stark reality-

Table I-[6]

The above statistics extracted from NCRB (National Crime Records Bureau) data show that there is approx 165% increase in registration from 2016 to 2019; in contrast, there is a decrease in the rate of conviction from 33.3% in 2016 to 3.3% in 2019.[7]Furthermore, as per the data of NCRB, out of 548 individuals arrested between of2015-2020, only 12 were convicted, highlighting the potential of misuse.[8]

Lastly, despite the SC directives, Indian authorities have often invoked the sedition law in a manner inconsistent with constitutional safeguards.

• In 2012, cartoonist Aseem Trivedi was arrested for satirical content mocking national symbols[9]
• Student leaders from JNU, including Kanhaiya Kumar, in 2016, were charged with reciting anti-national slogans[10]
• In 2021, environmental activist Disha Ravi was arrested in connection with the ‘toolkit’ investigation related to the farmers’ protest, in which sedition allegations were also raised.[11]

Section 152 of the BNS: Modernization or Colonial Continuity

Modernizing Aspects 

Following the recommendations of the 279^th Law Commission Report, the new criminal law retained the provision, however, with significant modifications and procedural safeguards.

Section 152 of BNS criminalizes the act endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India as –

“Whoever, purposely or knowingly, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or by electronic communication or by use of financial mean, or otherwise, excites or attempts to excite, secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities, or encourages feelings of separatist activities or endangers sovereignty or unity and integrity of India; or indulges in or commits any such act shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”[12]

At first glance, the main difference is the omission of the word ‘Sedition’. This depicts that the entire focus of law is to safeguard the nation, not an individual. On a closer examination, there are notable changes-

• Unlike Section 124A of the IPC, which criminalizes any act that incites hatred towards the government, Section 152 of BNS criminalizes any act that endangers the security of the nation.
• Explicitly incorporates mens rea as one of the essential requirements.
• Modernizes the law by including electronic and financial means within its ambit.
• Unlike previous laws, it explicitly defines what constitutes a threat by listing danger (armed rebellion, secession)[13]

Colonial Imprints: Endangering Fundamental Rights

Freedom of speech, as enshrined under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, forms the heart and spirit of a democratic nation. Any provision posing a threat to this right must be scrutinized carefully. Section 152 of BNS, though progressive in its scope, may suppress democratic dissent due to vague framing.

For instance, it is unclear what ‘subversive activities’ and ‘encouraging separatist feeling’ mean. In the landmark case of Shreya Singhal vs. UOI, the SC struck down Section 66A of the IT Act as it included ambiguous terms like ‘annoyance’. If we were to apply the aforesaid principle, then Section 152 of BNS may be considered unconstitutional on similar grounds of vagueness.

It has, further, lowered the threshold for prosecution. The provision punishes anyone who acts either purposely or knowingly. Even if one does not intend to incite violence, they can be held liable if they have knowledge of the same. This exposes threats to journalists, activists, and citizens.[14]

In addition, the Sedition law under Section 152 of BNS violates Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Offence committed under this provision is non-bailable and cognizable. This frequently leads to arbitrary detention and violation of personal liberty.

The Law in Practice: Contemporary Cases

In S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India (2025), a retired major general has challenged the legitimacy of Section 152 of BNS. The petition argues that the provision employs ambiguous terms. In response, SC has issued a notice to the Central government and tagged other pending sedition reviews.[15]

Other cases involving violation of fundamental rights are[16]–

• Siddharth Varadarajan & Karan Thapar Case–FIR was registered by the Assam Police against Varadarajan and Thapar. The SC stayed the arrest of the editor and senior journalist of The Wire.
• Sajid Chaudhary v. State of U.P. (2025) –The accused/applicant was falsely implicated. Later, the court reaffirmed that simply forwarding a message supporting another country would not amount to sedition, unless it triggers violence.

These cases highlight how the present provision, though it appears to be progressive on paper, bears a colonial imprint.

Conclusion

The structural transformation from old colonial rule is noteworthy. However, this does not truly modernize the law, as Section 152 of BNS still perpetuates certain aspects of colonial legacy. Dissent is the safety valve of democracy. If you don’t allow dissent, the pressure valve of democracy will burst. At the same time, the security of the nation is of utmost importance.

In essence, there is a need to balance national security with fundamental freedoms, ensuring that the law acts as a shield to protect the sovereignty of the nation, rather than a weapon to silence the voice of its citizens.

 AUTHOR: Khushi Tripathi, 2^nd year law student at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law.

[1]The Politics of Sedition, 58 Econ. & Pol. Weekly 7 (2023), https://www.epw.in/journal/2023/24/editorials/politics-sedition.html.

[2]Dr.Chitra Singh,A Critical Legal Analysis of Sedition:- Section 152 of The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 124-A of The Indian Penal Code, 3 ILEMJ 9, (2024).

[3]The Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 124A, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).

[4] Kruthika R. & Varsha Singh, Is Sedition Constitutional? From Tara Chand [1950] to Aditya Ranjan [2021],  Supreme Court observer (Mar. 1, 2021), www.scobserver.in.

[5]Oshika Banerji, Landmark sedition cases in India, ipleaders (Jan.10, 2022) blog.ipleaders.in/landmark-sedition-cases-in-India/

[6]Pasham Abhinay Reddy, THE CRIMINALIZATION OF DISSENT A Systematic Analysis of Sedition, UAPA, and Anti-Terror Laws in Democratic India (2014-2024),(2025), http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5880362

[7]Leah Verghese, NCRB 2019 Data Shows 165% Jump in Sedition Cases, 33% Jump in UAPA Cases Under Modi Govt, ThePrint, https://theprint.in/opinion/ncrb-2019-data-shows-165-jump-in-sedition-cases-33-jump-in-uapa-cases-under-modi-govt/521861/.

[8] Bharti Jain, Of 548 held, only 12 in 7 cases convicted, Times of India (May10, 2022) timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/of-548-held-just-12-in-7-cases-convicted.cms

[9]Cartoonist’s Arrest, The Hindu (Sept. 11, 2012), https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/letters/cartoonists-arrest/article.ece

[10]India JNU Student Leader Kanhaiya Kumar Granted Bail, BBC News (Mar. 3, 2016), https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-35704163.

[11]Akshay Kumar Dongare, Activist Disha Ravi, 22, Arrested Over Toolkit, Faces Conspiracy Charge, NDTV (Feb. 15, 2021), https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/activist-disha-ravi-22-arrested-in-toolkit-case-wanted-to-revive-khalistan-group-cops-2370436.

[12] The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, § 152, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).

[13]Pratiksha Sharma, SEDITION IN BHARAT: A TRANSFORMATIVE IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF SECTION 124A IPC AND SECTION 152 OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023,Research Gate (Nov. 2024)www.researchgate.net/publication/Sedition_in_Bharat_A_transformative_In-Depth_Analysis_of_Section_124A_IPC_and_Section_152_of_Bharatiya_Nyaya_Sanhita_2023

[14]Nilanjana Ghosh, Balancing National Integrity and Free Speech: The Constitutional Fate of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 8 ijllr 33, (2026).

[15]Debayan Roy, Sedition 2.0: Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Response to Plea Challenging Section 152 BNS, Bar & Bench 1 (2025), https://www.barandbench.com/news/sedition-20-supreme-court-seeks-centres-response-to-plea-challenging-section-152-bns.

[16]This Week at the Supreme Court: Notice Issued in Constitutional Challenge to India’s Re-introduced Sedition Law, The Leaflet (Aug. 10, 2025), https://theleaflet.in/leaflet-reports/this-week-at-the-supreme-court-notice-issued-in-constitutional-challenge-to-indias-re-introduced-sedition-law.