Author : Shikha, LLB, Chandigarh University
ABSTRACT
The recent judgment by the Rajasthan High Court in the Tejender Pal Singh v. State of Rajasthan case has reignited the national discourse on the delicate balance between state security and freedom of speech. This case highlights significant concerns about the potential misuse of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which penalizes acts endangering India’s sovereignty, unity, and integrity. The High Court’s decision to quash the FIR against Tejender Pal Singh, who was accused of supporting separatist ideology through his social media posts, underscores the need for careful application of laws that may impinge on constitutional freedoms.
This article critically examines the implications of Section 152 BNS, analysing how its broad language could be exploited to suppress dissent, much like the repealed sedition law under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court’s observations serve as a crucial reminder that mere criticism of the government, absent any direct incitement to violence or rebellion, cannot be construed as a threat to national security. By comparing Section 152 BNS with the erstwhile sedition law, this article evaluates whether the new provision genuinely safeguards the state or merely rebrands the controversial sedition framework.
INTRODUCTION
Freedom of speech and expression is one of the most cherished fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution under Article 19(1)(a). These right forms the cornerstone of a vibrant democracy, allowing citizens to voice their opinions, criticize government policies, and engage in public discourse. However, this freedom is not absolute and can be reasonably restricted under Article 19(2) in the interest of sovereignty, integrity, security of the state, public order, and other concerns. Historically, Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalized sedition, was one such provision that aimed to safeguard national integrity but often came under severe criticism for being misused to suppress dissent and political opposition.
Recognizing the misuse and colonial legacy of the sedition law, the Indian government repealed Section 124A IPC with the introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. However, the enactment of Section 152 BNS, which penalizes acts that “endanger sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India,” has sparked apprehensions that the essence of the sedition law has been reintroduced under a new legal framework. Critics argue that Section 152 BNS mirrors the language and intent of the repealed sedition law but with even broader and more ambiguous terminology, making it vulnerable to misuse.
The recent case of Tejender Pal Singh v. State of Rajasthan has brought this debate to the forefront. This ruling raises critical questions about the nature and scope of Section 152 BNS. This article seeks to explore these questions by analysing the legislative intent behind Section 152 BNS, comparing it with the now-repealed sedition law, and evaluating the implications of the Rajasthan High Court’s judgment. It further examines the challenges in balancing national security with individual freedoms and the role of judicial oversight in preventing the misuse of stringent laws against political or ideological criticism.
BACKGROUND AND FACTS OF THE CASE
The case of Tejender Pal Singh v. State of Rajasthan centres around the delicate balance between national security concerns and the right to freedom of speech in India. Tejender Pal Singh, a Sikh preacher known for his active engagement on social media, was accused of expressing sympathies toward pro-Khalistan ideologies, particularly through his support for Amritpal Singh, a separatist leader advocating for the creation of Khalistan—a sovereign Sikh state.
Incident Leading to FIR In July 2024, an FIR was registered against Tejender Pal Singh under Sections 152 and 197(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. Section 152 penalizes acts that threaten the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India, while Section 197(1)(c) pertains to public servant misconduct. The complaint alleged that Singh’s social media posts indirectly endorsed secessionist ideologies and could potentially incite communal disharmony or threaten national security.
Tejender Pal Singh, in his defence, contended that the FIR was baseless and politically motivated. He argued that his social media posts were within the ambit of his right to free speech and did not advocate violence or rebellion. Singh further claimed that the FIR stemmed from personal and community rivalries related to Gurdwara management disputes and was an attempt to malign his reputation. He maintained that criticizing government policies or expressing solidarity with individuals facing state action does not equate to promoting separatism or endangering national security.
The case was brought before the Rajasthan High Court, where Justice Arun Monga presided over the matter. Singh filed a petition seeking the quashing of the FIR, arguing that the charges under Section 152 BNS lacked merit and violated his fundamental rights.
Justice Arun Monga observed that Singh’s social media activity, although critical of government actions, did not amount to inciting violence or rebellion. The court noted that there was no direct or imminent connection between Singh’s posts and any act that could endanger India’s sovereignty or unity. The court highlighted that the intent (mens rea) to incite violence or threaten the state is a necessary element to establish an offence under Section 152 BNS, which was absent in Singh’s case. Moreover, the FIR against Tejender Pal Singh was quashed, ruling that the allegations were unfounded and the application of Section 152 BNS was unwarranted and the court expressed concern over the potential misuse of Section 152 BNS as a substitute for the sedition law, emphasizing that laws designed to protect national security must not be used to curb lawful dissent. Justice Monga reiterated that democratic societies must tolerate criticism, dissent, and differing viewpoints, provided they do not cross the line into incitement or violence.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE VERDICT
This verdict is a landmark in reinforcing the balance between state security and individual freedoms. It serves as a critical precedent in preventing the misuse of Section 152 BNS and protecting citizens’ rights to express dissent without fear of criminal prosecution. The Rajasthan High Court’s judgment stands as a strong defence of democratic values and judicial oversight, ensuring that stringent laws are applied judiciously and not as instruments of suppression.
SECTION 152 BNS: A REBRANDED SEDITION LAW?
The repeal of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalized sedition, was widely viewed as a progressive step toward safeguarding freedom of speech and expression in India. However, the introduction of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, has reignited debates about whether this provision is merely a rebranded version of the colonial-era sedition law. Critics argue that Section 152 BNS carries the same intent as the repealed sedition law but with broader and more ambiguous language, raising concerns about its potential misuse.
- Comparative Analysis: Section 124A IPC vs. Section 152 BNS
Section 124A IPC (Repealed) defined sedition as any act that brings or attempts to bring hatred, contempt, or disaffection towards the government established by law. The punishment ranged from imprisonment for life to three years of imprisonment, along with a fine. The colonial-era provision was primarily used to suppress dissent during British rule and continued to be criticized in post-independence India for being misused against activists, journalists, and political opponents.
Section 152 BNS states: “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 means or otherwise, excites or attempts to excite secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities, or encourages feelings of separatist activities or endangers sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
While Section 152 omits the term “disaffection” used in Section 124A IPC, it introduces broader terms like “subversive activities” and “endangers sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India,” which are open to wide interpretation.
- Broader and Vague Terminology
Section 152 BNS covers a wider spectrum of activities compared to the repealed sedition law. Phrases such as “subversive activities” and “feelings of separatist activities” are inherently ambiguous and lack precise legal definitions. This vagueness grants significant discretionary power to law enforcement agencies and the government, increasing the risk of misuse.
Unlike Section 124A, which primarily targeted actions against the government, Section 152 BNS focuses on acts that may threaten the sovereignty and integrity of the nation. However, the absence of clear guidelines to differentiate between lawful dissent and subversive actions leaves room for interpretation and potential abuse.
- Expansion of Mediums of Expression
Section 152 BNS explicitly includes expressions made through “electronic communication” and “financial means,” expanding its applicability to digital platforms and financial transactions. This reflects a recognition of the evolving modes of communication in the digital era but also raises concerns about increased surveillance and restrictions on online speech.
- Absence of Procedural Safeguards
One of the major criticisms of Section 152 BNS is the absence of clear procedural safeguards to prevent its misuse. The provision does not outline specific criteria or thresholds for what constitutes “endangering sovereignty” or “subversive activities.” In contrast, the Supreme Court of India, in various judgments, had read down Section 124A IPC to ensure that only speech inciting violence or public disorder could be prosecuted. However, Section 152 BNS does not explicitly incorporate such judicial safeguards, raising fears that it could be applied arbitrarily.
- Judicial Concerns on Potential Misuse
The Rajasthan High Court, in the Tejender Pal Singh case, echoed concerns about the misuse of Section 152 BNS. Justice Arun Monga highlighted that vague and broadly worded laws could easily be weaponized against individuals exercising their democratic right to dissent. The court warned that without careful application, Section 152 could become a replacement for the repealed sedition law, thus undermining the purpose of its repeal.
- Need for Judicial and Legislative Reforms
To prevent the misuse of Section 152 BNS, there is an urgent need for judicial interpretation that narrows its application and introduces safeguards. Legislative reforms could also include clearer definitions and thresholds for prosecutable actions, ensuring that the provision targets only genuine threats to national security.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, safeguarding democratic freedoms while addressing national security concerns requires a careful balance between protecting the state and preserving individual rights. Section 152 BNS, with its broad and ambiguous language, poses a risk to free speech and expression, as it could potentially be misused to silence dissent under the guise of national security. Judicial oversight, such as the Rajasthan High Court’s verdict in the Tejender Pal Singh case, is crucial in ensuring that such laws are applied cautiously and in accordance with constitutional protections. Additionally, legislative clarity, procedural safeguards, and civil society engagement are essential to prevent misuse and protect democratic discourse. To truly safeguard democratic freedoms, laws like Section 152 BNS must be precise, proportionate, and consistently scrutinized to ensure that they do not stifle the very freedoms that define India’s democracy. Ultimately, the careful application of security laws, with due respect for civil liberties, will determine the future of democratic engagement in India.
CASE LAWS
- Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955
This case is one of the most significant judgments concerning the sedition law (Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code). The Supreme Court held that sedition laws could only be invoked when there is an incitement to violence or a direct threat to public order. The Court clarified that mere criticism of the government or its policies does not amount to sedition, thereby providing a safeguard against the misuse of sedition laws and protecting free speech within democratic limits.
- Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995) 3 SCC 214
The Supreme Court held that the mere act of raising slogans, even if perceived to be seditious, does not amount to sedition unless there is a clear intent to incite violence or disturb public order. This judgment distinguished between speech that is critical of the government and speech that poses a real threat to public security, further refining the scope of sedition laws.
- Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641
This judgment is important in terms of interpreting the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). The Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot impose unreasonable restrictions on the media or individuals who express critical opinions about the government. The Court reinforced the idea that democracy thrives on an informed and active public discourse.
- Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, (1966) 1 SCR 709
This case dealt with the scope of restrictions on speech under Article 19(2). The Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot arbitrarily restrict free speech based on vague or generalized fears of public disorder. The Court emphasized that even speech deemed to be against the government cannot be restricted unless it has a clear and direct potential to cause public disorder.
FAQs
- What is Section 152 BNS, and how does it relate to sedition laws?
Section 152 BNS is a provision that criminalizes actions threatening the sovereignty, integrity, or security of India. It has been scrutinized for potentially being a rebranded version of sedition laws, as it can be used to criminalize dissent or expressions that challenge the government, raising concerns about misuse for political suppression.
- How does the Rajasthan High Court’s ruling in the Tejender Pal Singh case affect Section 152 BNS?
The Rajasthan High Court quashed an FIR filed under Section 152 BNS, flagging its potential misuse as a substitute for sedition laws. The Court’s judgment emphasized the need for caution in applying such laws, ensuring that they are not used arbitrarily to stifle free speech or political dissent.
- Can Section 152 BNS be used to suppress free speech in India?
Section 152 BNS, with its broad and vague language, can potentially be misused to suppress legitimate free speech and criticism of the government. The lack of clear definitions can make it susceptible to arbitrary application, particularly in politically sensitive cases.
- What safeguards can be put in place to prevent the misuse of Section 152 BNS?
To prevent misuse, legislative clarity is needed in the drafting of Section 152 BNS. Additionally, procedural safeguards, such as requiring approval from higher authorities before charging individuals under this section, judicial oversight, and clear definitions of what constitutes a threat to national security, are essential in balancing security concerns with democratic freedoms.
- How does the misuse of laws like Section 152 BNS impact democratic freedoms?
The misuse of laws like Section 152 BNS can have a chilling effect on public discourse, leading to self-censorship and the suppression of dissent. It undermines democratic freedoms by making it difficult for individuals, journalists, and activists to express opinions without fear of legal repercussions, thus weakening the foundation of democratic engagement.