Author: Madhavi Pathak, S.Y. B.A.LL.B, Bharatratna Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar law college, Mumbai University
Sedition law is “Designed to Suppress the Liberty of the Citizen”
Mahatma Gandhi
Section 150 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as “BNS”) criminalizes acts that endanger the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India, prescribing punishment of life imprisonment or imprisonment extending up to seven years, along with a fine. Notably, the minimum punishment for this offence has been increased from three years to seven years. While the sec. does not explicitly label the offence as ‘sedition,’ it aligns with the essence of Section 124A of the IPC. Furthermore, the provision arguably covers a broader range of acts, many of which remain ambiguous and vague, raising concerns about its constitutionality.
There have been some recent developments regarding the criminal offence of sedition have taken place :
Hon’ble Supreme Court has placed Sec. 124A of IPC in abeyance.
The Law Commission of India in its 279th report recommended retaining the crime of sedition on the statute books.
While introducing the new criminal law bills, the Home Minister proclaimed in the Lok Sabha that the crime of sedition has been done away with.
Section 108 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which provides for obtaining security for good behavior from individuals disseminating seditious matters, has been substantially retained in Sec. 127 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita Sanchodhan (BNSS). Sec. 127 refers to any publication punishable under Sec. 150 of the BNSS as “seditious matter”. Although the term “sedition” has been removed in defining the offence under Sec. 150, the procedural law in the BNSS retains references to “seditious matter.” This continuity suggests that despite changes in terminology, Sec. 150 essentially preserves the crime of sedition and raises questions about whether its interpretation will remain rooted in the established understanding of sedition.
Retention of Sedition and Expanded Scope
Sec. 150 of the BNSS focuses on exciting or attempting to excite secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities, or encouraging separatist feelings that endanger India’s sovereignty, unity, or integrity. It broadens the means of committing the offense, including electronic communication and financial means, and includes the mens rea of “purposely or knowingly” committing such acts.
The Vice of Vagueness
Unlike Section 124A of the IPC, Sec. 150 provides no explanations clarifying the meanings of terms such as “subversive activities.” The lack of legal definitions for such terms renders them open to subjective interpretation. For instance, dictionaries define “subversive” broadly as actions seeking to undermine or damage established systems or authority, encompassing legitimate protests and dissent against the government. This overbroad language risks arbitrary enforcement and mirrors the vagueness struck down by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. There, terms like “grossly offensive,” “inconvenience,” and “enmity” in Section 66A of the IT Act were deemed unconstitutionally vague. Similarly, Sec. 150 lacks clarity on the scope of “financial means,” leaving its interpretation uncertain. The incomplete explanation accompanying Sec. 150 further exacerbates its vagueness. While it refers to lawful comments expressing disapprobation of government measures, it does not clarify whether such comments fall outside the scope of the offence, unlike Explanation 3 to Section 124A IPC.
Ambiguity in the Object of Harm
Sec. 150 departs from the IPC by replacing “the Government established by law in India” with “sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India” as the object of protection. This shift broadens the offence’s scope, as the concept of “India” lacks the specificity inherent in the term “Government.” In Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court described “Government established by law” as a visible symbol of the State, distinguishing it from individuals in administration. This distinction provided a safeguard against an overbroad application. The broader and more abstract “sovereignty and unity” standard in Sec. 150 undermines this safeguard.
Criminalizing Dissent
The Supreme Court in Kedar Nath emphasized the distinction between disloyalty to the Government and legitimate criticism. It upheld that free speech under Article 19(1)(a) includes strong criticism of government measures, provided it does not incite violence or public disorder. Cases like Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, where casual slogans were deemed insufficient to constitute sedition, highlight this protection. Sec. 150, however, risks criminalizing mere dissent by framing secessionist or subversive feelings as offences, thereby expanding the scope of sedition beyond judicial precedents.
Mens Rea
Sec. 150 explicitly includes “purposely or knowingly” as the mens rea requirement, but this does not represent a significant improvement over Section 124A IPC, which judicially implied mens rea. As observed in Ravule Hariprasad Rao v. State and State of Maharashtra v. MH George, statutory offences are generally presumed to require mens rea unless explicitly excluded. In Kedar Nath, the Court affirmed this principle, making the inclusion of mens rea in Sec.150 more declarative than substantive.
Sec. 150 of the BNS, despite revisions, preserves the core of colonial sedition laws, expanding its scope with vague language. This increases the risk of misuse, particularly targeting social media and protests, as seen under Section 124A. Experts warn that Sec. 150 may be even more susceptible to abuse, undermining the democratic principles of the Constitution.
Comparison between s. 124A, IPC and Cl. 150, BNS
S. 124A, IPC – Sedition
Cl. 150, BNS – Acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India
The provision criminalizes actions or expressions—spoken, written, or otherwise—that incite or attempt to incite hatred, contempt, or disaffection towards the Government established by law in India. Punishments include life imprisonment with fine, imprisonment up to three years with fine, or fine alone.
Explanation 1: “Disaffection” encompasses disloyalty and enmity.
Explanation 2: Lawful criticism of government measures seeking alteration without inciting hatred, contempt, or disaffection is not an offence.
Explanation 3: Criticism of administrative actions without inciting hatred, contempt, or disaffection is also excluded from being an offence.
The provision penalizes any person who, purposely or knowingly, incites or attempts to incite secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities, separatist sentiments, or actions endangering India’s sovereignty, unity, and integrity, using words, signs, electronic communication, financial means, or other methods. Punishment includes life imprisonment or imprisonment up to seven years, along with a fine.
Explanation: Lawful criticism of government measures or actions seeking alteration without inciting prohibited activities does not constitute an offence.
