The Supreme Court has agreed to examine a constitutional challenge to Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — a provision critics say revives and expands the sedition law once found under the Indian Penal Code.
Taking up a public interest litigation filed by retired Army officer Major General S G Vombatkere (retd.), a recipient of the Vishisht Seva Medal, a bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and comprising Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria issued notice to the Union Government on Friday. The petition contests the constitutional validity of Section 152, which replaces the repealed Section 124A IPC but is alleged to carry forward the same core elements under a new name.
Section 152 criminalises any act — committed intentionally or knowingly — that excites or attempts to excite secession, armed rebellion, or subversive activities, or that encourages separatist sentiments or endangers India’s sovereignty, unity, or integrity. It applies to words spoken or written, signs, electronic communication, financial means, or any other method. The offence is punishable with life imprisonment or a term extending up to seven years, along with a fine.
The petition argues that the provision is essentially a “rebranded version” of the colonial-era sedition offence under Section 124A IPC, which was put on hold by the Supreme Court in July 2022, pending a legislative review. It contends that while the terminology has changed, the underlying intent — to penalise broadly defined and ambiguous categories of speech — remains intact, if not more expansive.
The bench also directed that the petition be tagged with the earlier pending case that challenges the constitutionality of Section 124A of the IPC.
In the current plea, Section 152 is said to infringe fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. According to the petitioner, the provision lacks the clarity required under Article 19(1)(a) and fails the constitutional tests of necessity and proportionality. It also allegedly opens the door to arbitrary enforcement by the State, thus violating the right to equality under Article 14 and the due process guarantee under Article 21.
Further, the petition points out that while Section 152 requires acts to be done “purposely or knowingly,” neither of these terms is defined in the statute. It raises concern that “knowingly” could cover conduct where a person merely foresees possible consequences without any actual intent — a vagueness that could lead to misuse.
Calling the provision a threat to democratic discourse and the right to dissent, the plea urges the Court to strike it down.
The matter is now likely to be heard alongside the earlier sedition challenge in due course.
