Rajasthan High Court Declares Section 152 BNS a Rebranded Sedition Law, Warns Against Misuse to Stifle Dissent

Rajasthan High Court delivered a significant verdict concerning Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), stating that the provision is essentially “sedition by another name.” The court asserted that this provision should not be employed as a tool to suppress dissent, reinforcing the principle of safeguarding democratic freedoms.

Case Overview

The ruling came in the case of Tejender Pal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, where the petitioner challenged the invocation of Section 152 BNS against him. The provision, which criminalizes acts aimed at “endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India,” has been criticized for its vague and expansive language, reminiscent of the repealed sedition law under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Key Observations by the Court

The Rajasthan High Court, while scrutinizing the case, highlighted the following:

1. Comparison with Section 124A IPC: The court observed that Section 152 BNS closely mirrors Section 124A IPC, which was repealed to address its misuse in stifling dissent and political opposition.

2. Democratic Freedoms: Justice [Name] emphasized that a democratic society thrives on freedom of speech and expression. The court warned against the misuse of Section 152 to curb legitimate criticism of the government, labeling such actions as antithetical to democratic principles.

3. Vagueness of Language: The judgment criticized the vague terminology used in Section 152, noting that it could lead to arbitrary application and suppression of free speech.

4. Need for Judicial Oversight: The court underscored the importance of judicial oversight in cases involving Section 152 to prevent its misuse against individuals engaging in lawful dissent.

Implications of the Judgment

The High Court’s decision sets a critical precedent in the interpretation of Section 152 BNS. It sends a strong message to law enforcement agencies to exercise caution while invoking the provision, ensuring it is not used as a weapon against free speech.

Moreover, the judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional values and protecting individual liberties from legislative overreach.

Broader Context

The ruling aligns with ongoing debates about the balance between national security and civil liberties. While the government argues that provisions like Section 152 are essential to safeguard the nation’s integrity, critics contend that such laws often serve as instruments of political control.

The repeal of Section 124A IPC was widely regarded as a progressive step. However, its replacement with Section 152 BNS has drawn sharp criticism, with many viewing it as a superficial reform that fails to address the root issues of overreach and misuse.

Conclusion

The Rajasthan High Court’s judgment in Tejender Pal Singh v. State of Rajasthan marks a pivotal moment in the discourse on free speech and national security in India. By equating Section 152 BNS to the repealed sedition law, the court has reignited discussions on the need for legislative clarity and restraint.

This decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting democratic freedoms while ensuring that national security laws are not weaponized against dissent. As debates around Section 152 BNS continue, the ruling is expected to serve as a critical reference point for future legal challenges and interpretations.

For the full text of the judgment, refer to Tejender Pal Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2024) .