Sedition Law in the BNS, 2023: Does Section 152 Still Threaten Free Speech in India?

Section 152 BNS and the end of “sedition”: why the question still matters

Freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed to every citizen by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) on grounds that include the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, public order and incitement to an offence.^[1] For more than 150 years, the offence of sedition in Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 sat at the point where that guarantee meets those restrictions.

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023) replaced the Indian Penal Code and came into force on 1 July 2024. It does not use the word “sedition”.^[2] In its place, Section 152 creates the offence of acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. Critics describe it as sedition under another name. Those who defend it say it is aimed at secession, armed rebellion and subversive activities, not at criticism of the Government. The Supreme Court is now examining its validity.

This article sets out what Section 152 says, how it differs from Section 124A, which limits the courts have already placed on offences of this kind, and where the constitutional challenge stands.

A note on numbering. The Bill introduced in Parliament in August 2023 carried this offence as clause 150, and many commentaries still refer to “Section 150”. In the Act as enacted, the offence is Section 152. Section 150 of the Act deals with concealing a design to wage war against the Government of India.^[2]

Section 124A IPC: the colonial origins of sedition

The Indian Penal Code as enacted in 1860 contained no sedition offence. Section 124A was inserted a decade later by the Indian Penal Code Amendment Act, 1870.^[3] As it later stood, it punished 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”, with imprisonment for life (with or without fine), imprisonment of up to three years (with or without fine), or fine alone. Its Explanations protected comment expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government, with a view to obtaining their alteration by lawful means, and comment on the administrative or other action of the Government, in each case without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection.^[4]

The provision was used against nationalist leaders. Bal Gangadhar Tilak was prosecuted under it in 1897, and Mahatma Gandhi in 1922, when he described Section 124A as “perhaps the prince among the political sections of the Indian Penal Code designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen”.^[5]

Before independence, the courts were divided on how far the offence ran. In Niharendu Dutt Majumdar v. King-Emperor (1942), the Federal Court held that the gist of sedition is incitement to violence or the tendency to create public disorder. In King-Emperor v. Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao (1947), the Privy Council rejected that narrower view and held that incitement to violence is not an essential ingredient.^[6] That disagreement was settled in India only after the Constitution came into force.

The Constitution and the first challenges to Section 124A

The framers chose not to list sedition among the grounds on which speech may be restricted. On an amendment moved by K.M. Munshi on 1 December 1948, the word was omitted from the draft of what became Article 19(2).^[7]

In 1950, the Supreme Court held in Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras^[8] and Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi^[9] that laws restricting speech in the interest of public order could not be saved by Article 19(2) as it then stood, because public order was not a listed ground. High Courts then turned to Section 124A itself. The East Punjab High Court in Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. The State (1950) and the Allahabad High Court in Ram Nandan v. State of U.P. (1958) held it inconsistent with Article 19(1)(a).^[10]

Parliament responded with the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. It added “public order”, “friendly relations with foreign States” and “incitement to an offence” to Article 19(2) and made the restrictions subject to a test of reasonableness.^[1] Section 124A was not repealed by that amendment or afterwards; it stayed on the statute book until the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita replaced the Indian Penal Code in 2024. The amendment did not “reinstate” it, but it widened the constitutional room within which the Supreme Court later upheld it.

Kedar Nath Singh (1962): the limits the Supreme Court placed on Section 124A

In Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, a Constitution Bench of five judges headed by Chief Justice B.P. Sinha upheld Section 124A on 20 January 1962. The appellant had been convicted for a speech criticising the Government. The Court held that the section is valid only when confined to acts involving “intention or tendency to create disorder, or disturbance of law and order, or incitement to violence”, and that strong words used against the Government or its measures, without such a tendency, are not sedition.^[4]

Later decisions have applied that standard. In Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995), the Court held that Section 124A did not apply where two persons had raised slogans such as “Khalistan Zindabad” in a public place, because casual sloganeering, without any other act or any response from the public, could not be said to be aimed at exciting disaffection towards the Government.^[11] In Vinod Dua v. Union of India (2021), the Court quashed a sedition FIR against a journalist over his criticism of the Government, observing that every journalist is entitled to the protection of Kedar Nath Singh.^[12]

Two further principles frame any challenge to a penal provision that restricts speech. First, in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 for vagueness and overbreadth, because language that does not tell a person what is forbidden has a chilling effect on speech.^[13] Second, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Court held that Articles 14, 19 and 21 must be read together, so that a law affecting personal liberty must be just, fair and reasonable, not arbitrary.^[14]

2022: the Supreme Court puts Section 124A in abeyance

In S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India (W.P. (C) No. 682 of 2021), a three-judge bench passed an order on 11 May 2022. It recorded the Union’s agreement with the Court’s prima facie view that the rigours of Section 124A are not in tune with the current social milieu, and the Union’s decision to re-examine the provision. The Court directed that all pending trials, appeals and proceedings in which a charge had been framed under Section 124A be kept in abeyance, and recorded its hope and expectation that the Union and the States would refrain from registering any FIR, continuing any investigation or taking coercive measures under Section 124A until the re-examination was complete. Proceedings under other sections could continue where no prejudice would result to the accused.^{[15, 16]}

The order was interim. It did not decide whether Section 124A is valid, and because the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita did not yet exist, it could not address Section 152. On 21 May 2026, a bench of the Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi clarified the order: where the accused has no objection, courts may proceed with trials and appeals involving a Section 124A charge and decide them on merits.^[17] The challenge to the validity of Section 124A itself was referred to a larger Bench on 12 September 2023 and, according to a May 2026 report, is still awaiting the constitution of that Bench.^[18]

What Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita says

Section 152 reads: “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 [sic], 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.”^[2]

The Explanation adds: “Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures, or administrative or other action of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means without exciting or attempting to excite the activities referred to in this section do not constitute an offence under this section.”^[2]

How Section 152 BNS differs from Section 124A IPC

Different core conduct. Section 124A turned on bringing the Government into hatred or contempt, or exciting disaffection towards it. Section 152 uses none of those words and, apart from its Explanation, does not mention the Government at all. It speaks of exciting secession, armed rebellion or subversive activities, encouraging feelings of separatist activities, and endangering the sovereignty or unity and integrity of India.^[2]

A stated mental element. Section 152 requires the act to be done “purposely or knowingly”. Section 124A contained no such words.

New modes of commission. Electronic communication and the use of financial means are named expressly, alongside words, signs and visible representations.

Punishment. Section 124A allowed imprisonment for life, imprisonment of up to three years, or fine alone. Section 152 provides imprisonment for life or imprisonment of up to seven years, and the offender is also liable to fine. A sentence of fine alone is no longer available.

The Explanation. Section 124A carried three Explanations: one on the meaning of disaffection, and two protecting comment on Government measures and administrative action. Section 152 keeps the protection for lawful, non-inciting criticism in a single Explanation.^{[4, 2]}

Classification. Under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, an offence under Section 152 is cognizable, non-bailable and triable by the Court of Session, the same classification Section 124A carried.^[19]

The arguments for and against Section 152

The challenge. Petitioners argue that “subversive activities” and “encouraging feelings of separatist activities” are not defined anywhere in the Sanhita, that the phrases can reach speech far short of incitement, and that this vagueness offends Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 and chills legitimate expression, the reasoning that succeeded against Section 66A in Shreya Singhal.^{[13, 20]} The text of Section 152 also does not expressly carry the Kedar Nath Singh formula of an intention or tendency to create disorder or incite violence.

The Law Commission. The Law Commission of India’s 279th Report, “Usage of the Law of Sedition”, recommended retaining Section 124A with amendments: an express requirement of a tendency to incite violence or cause public disorder, procedural safeguards against misuse, and a higher punishment of imprisonment of up to seven years in place of three.^[21] The report drew criticism for retaining the offence after the Supreme Court’s 2022 order.

The defence. The arguments open to those who support Section 152, drawn from its text, are these. It does not criminalise criticism of the Government as such, it requires that the act be done purposely or knowingly, it targets conduct aimed at secession, armed rebellion and subversion, and it contains an Explanation protecting comment that seeks change by lawful means. They can also point to the sovereignty and integrity of India, which is an express ground for restricting speech under Article 19(2).^{[1, 2]}

A comparative note. Section 73 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 abolished the offences of sedition and seditious libel in England and Wales and Northern Ireland.^[22]

Which view prevails will depend on how the courts read “subversive activities” and “feelings of separatist activities”. If they are read in line with Kedar Nath Singh, so that only speech with an intention or tendency to incite violence or public disorder is caught, the provision may survive. If they are read literally, the vagueness arguments gain force.

Where the challenge to Section 152 stands in the Supreme Court

In August 2025, the Supreme Court issued notice on a petition by Major General (Retd.) S.G. Vombatkere challenging the validity of Section 152, and the Court tagged the petition with the batch of petitions pending before it challenging Section 124A.^{[20, 23]}

On 27 February 2026, in Azad Singh Kataria v. Union of India (W.P. (Crl.) No. 461/2024), which also challenges Sections 173(3) and 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, a bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, with Justice Joymalya Bagchi, orally observed that the Union’s 2022 undertaking to reconsider the sedition law does not bind Parliament, that Parliament has the prerogative to legislate, and that a law found contrary to the Constitution can be struck down on judicial review. The matter was adjourned for hearing after the Holi vacation.^[24] It was heard again on 31 July 2026, when the Chief Justice said of the new laws, “give it some time… we will examine”; no interim order or next date was reported.^[25]

In the sources reviewed for this article, the latest reported hearing was on 31 July 2026, and no final judgment on the validity of Section 152 had been reported. The status of these petitions should be checked on the Supreme Court’s website before relying on this summary.

Practical points for citizens, journalists and organisations

Peaceful criticism of Government policy, even harsh criticism, that seeks change by lawful means is protected by Article 19(1)(a) and is expressly excluded from Section 152 by its Explanation.

Speech that excites or attempts to excite secession or armed rebellion, or that is intended or has a tendency to incite violence or public disorder, is a different matter and can attract prosecution.

Because the offence is cognizable and non-bailable, the police can register an FIR without a prior court order, and bail is not available as of right. A court cannot, however, take cognizance of an offence under Chapter VII of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which includes Section 152, without the previous sanction of the Central or State Government (Section 217(1)(a) BNSS). Anyone who learns that an FIR has been, or may be, registered should take legal advice without delay.^[19]

The remedies commonly explored include a petition to quash the FIR under Section 528 of the BNSS (see our guide to quashing FIRs under Section 528 BNSS) and, where arrest is apprehended, anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS (see anticipatory bail under the BNSS). Whether either is available depends on the facts of the case. For the wider shift from the IPC to the Sanhita, read our overview of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

This article is general information, not legal advice. Our criminal defence and writ and constitutional practices are described on our practice-areas page.

Frequently asked questions

Is sedition still a crime in India? The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita does not use the word, and the Indian Penal Code, including Section 124A, was replaced on 1 July 2024. Section 152 of the Sanhita creates an offence of acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, which many treat as the successor to sedition.

Is criticising the Government an offence under Section 152? Not by itself. The Explanation provides that comments expressing disapprobation of Government measures or action, with a view to obtaining their alteration by lawful means and without exciting the activities listed in the section, are not an offence.

What is the punishment under Section 152 BNS? Imprisonment for life or imprisonment of up to seven years, and the offender is also liable to fine.

Is Section 152 BNS bailable? No. It is cognizable, non-bailable and triable by the Court of Session.

Is Section 152 being challenged? Yes. Petitions challenging its validity are pending before the Supreme Court, and no final judgment had been reported at the time of writing.

Conclusion

Removing the word “sedition” from the statute book did not end the debate. Section 152 drops the language of hatred, contempt and disaffection towards the Government, adds a mental element and keeps an Explanation that protects lawful criticism. It also uses terms the Sanhita does not define, removes the fine-only sentence, and carries forward a cognizable, non-bailable classification.

Whether Section 152 proves to be a safeguard or a restatement of the old offence will be decided by the Supreme Court. Until then, the standards laid down in Kedar Nath Singh, Shreya Singhal and Vinod Dua remain the most reliable guide to where lawful speech ends and prosecution begins.