Why in the News?

On August 12, 2025, The Wire’s editors Siddharth Varadarajan and Karan Thapar were summoned by the Assam Police under Section 152 of the BNS, even as the Supreme Court had that very day issued protection while examining the constitutional validity of the new sedition law. This open defiance of judicial authority and the use of procedurally defective summons marks a serious blow to press freedom. What makes this moment significant is that the law being challenged is wider and harsher than colonial sedition provisions, despite India claiming to have moved away from such colonial baggage.

Introduction

The sedition debate in India has returned in a new form. While Section 124A IPC was suspended in 2022, the government introduced Section 152 of the BNS, which critics say is “sedition by another name.” The law widens state powers and lowers the threshold for prosecution, making legitimate criticism vulnerable to criminalisation. Recent cases against journalists show how easily this provision can be misused.

Section 152 and Its Differences from the Old Sedition Law

• Expanded scope: Goes beyond “disaffection” against government, criminalising acts deemed to endanger sovereignty, unity, and integrity.
• Lower bar for prosecution: Words like “knowingly” dilute intent requirements; mere criticism can be dragged into criminality.
• Colonial continuity: Despite being marketed as decolonisation, Section 152 retains the same suppressive essence as 124A IPC.

The Wire Case and Procedural Violations

• Summons despite SC protection: Assam Police issued notices on the very day of SC’s order, reflecting executive defiance.
• Lack of transparency: Summons omitted FIR dates, details of offence, and copies of FIR, violating BNSS safeguards.
• Political overtones: Linked to The Wire’s report on Operation Sindoor, raising concerns of vendetta-driven policing.

Threats to Press Freedom

• Chilling effect: Journalists may self-censor for fear of harassment.
• Vague definitions: Broad terms like “unity” and “sovereignty” give unchecked power to authorities.
• Targeting dissent: Questioning government policy risks being equated with undermining national integrity.

Judicial Response and Challenges

• Supreme Court scrutiny: SC is examining the constitutional validity of Section 152.
• Precedent of 2022: Earlier suspension of sedition cases showed judicial recognition of misuse.
• Executive overreach: Assam Police’s defiance underlines the need for stronger judicial safeguards and guidelines.

Broader Democratic Implications

• Freedom of expression at stake: Democracy thrives on criticism; silencing it weakens accountability.
• Comparative perspective: UK repealed sedition in 2009; US limits it only to violent overthrow.
• Governance paradox: Instead of transparency, India risks sliding into a majoritarian security state.

Way Forward

• Clear legislative safeguards: Narrow the scope of Section 152 with precise definitions of terms like “unity” and “sovereignty” to prevent misuse.
• Judicial guidelines: The Supreme Court can lay down binding principles (on the lines of Kedar Nath Singh and Shreya Singhal) that limit sedition to cases of direct incitement to violence or armed rebellion
• Independent oversight: A judicial or quasi-judicial body should vet sedition cases before FIR registration, reducing frivolous prosecutions.
• Strengthening press freedom: Institutional mechanisms like a Media Commission or independent ombudsman can address grievances without criminalisation.
• Comparative best practices: India can draw from the UK model of repeal and the US model of narrow application, balancing national security with democratic freedoms.
• Civic education: Promoting awareness among citizens, journalists, and law enforcement about constitutional morality and reasonable restrictions can ensure a culture of restraint and accountability.

Conclusion

Section 152 represents the persistence of colonial-style suppression under a new name. Unless the judiciary firmly strikes it down or introduces robust safeguards, it will continue to erode press freedom and democratic dissent, pillars without which India’s constitutional promise cannot stand strong.

Mapping Microthemes

• GS Paper II: Freedom of speech, judiciary, Centre-State federalism

• GS Paper III: Internal security vs. dissent.

• GS Paper IV: Misuse of power, ethics in public life, constitutional morality.

Practice Mains Question

“Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is sedition in a new form. Discuss in the context of press freedom and democratic governance in India.”

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now