CarpeDiem IAS • CarpeDiem IAS • CarpeDiem IAS •

Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

09 Aug 2025 GS 2 Polity
Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 Click to view full image

Context

  • On 9 August 2025, the Supreme Court sought the Union Government’s response to a petition filed by S.G. Vombatkere challenging Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

  • Allegation: The provision is a “repackaged” form of the colonial sedition law, earlier codified as Section 124A of IPC, 1860.

Key Provisions in Question – Section 152, BNS 2023

  • Criminalises:

    • Subversive activity

    • Encouragement of separatist feelings

    • Acts endangering unity or integrity of India

  • Petition argues language is vague and broad, allowing wide discretion in interpretation.

  • Punishment: Similar or broader in scope compared to the repealed sedition provision.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  1. Substantive Continuity with Section 124A IPC

    • Though nomenclature changed, core elements remain intact, possibly more expansive.

  2. Violation of Fundamental Rights:

    • Article 14 – Equality before law; arbitrary law violates this.

    • Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of speech and expression curtailed without reasonable justification.

    • Article 21 – Liberty threatened by vague and subjective definitions.

  3. Overbreadth & Vagueness

    • Allows criminalisation of dissent, peaceful criticism, and political opposition.

Judicial Context

  • Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) – SC upheld sedition but limited its application to acts involving incitement to violence or intention to create public disorder.

  • SC Order, May 2022 – Sedition law (Section 124A IPC) kept in abeyance; Union to reconsider provisions.

  • Current Challenge – Whether Section 152 is a disguised revival of the old sedition law.

Constitutional & Governance Implications

  • Free Speech in Democracy – Laws restricting dissent risk undermining democratic accountability.

  • Doctrine of Proportionality – Any restriction on rights must be necessary, proportionate, and narrowly tailored.

  • Separation of Powers – Courts’ role in preventing legislative overreach into constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

Doctrine of Proportionality:

the doctrine of proportionality says that if the government wants to restrict someone's rights, they need to make sure the restriction is necessary, effective, and not more than what's needed to achieve their goal. 

Cases related to Doctrine of Proportionality : 

Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001, SC)

  • Landmark: SC formally recognized Doctrine of Proportionality in Indian administrative law.

  • Principle:

    • Applied proportionality in cases involving fundamental freedoms (Part III).

    • Applied Wednesbury unreasonableness standard in non-fundamental right cases.

Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016, SC)

  • Principle: Adopted a four-pronged proportionality test in fundamental rights restrictions:

    1. Legitimate aim

    2. Rational connection

    3. Necessity (least restrictive measure)

    4. Balancing of rights and public interest.

K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017, SC – Privacy Case)

  • Principle: Applied proportionality to test restrictions on the right to privacy.

  • Formula: Legality → Legitimate aim → Proportionality → Procedural safeguards.

Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020, SC)

  • Principle: Used proportionality to assess internet shutdowns in J&K — restrictions must be necessary, least restrictive, and periodically reviewed

Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of India (2020, SC)

  • Principle: RBI’s ban on virtual currency exchanges failed proportionality — restrictions were excessive compared to objective.

Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-II) Review & Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar) case (2018, SC)

  • Principle: Upheld Aadhaar for targeted subsidies but struck down parts failing proportionality.





← Back to list