SC to examine validity of sedition-related Section 152 of BNS

It contended that Section 152 of the BNS is nothing but a repackaged sedition law, reinstated despite the pending challenge and suspension of Section 124A of the IPC.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to examine the constitutional validity of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (successor provision to Section 124-A of IPC), related to sedition.

A bench of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, and Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria issued notice to the Union government on a plea filed by retired Major General S G Vombatkere.

A plea challenging the validity of Section 124-A of the IPC has been pending consideration before a Constitution bench.

In July 2022, a three-judge bench led by then CJI N V Ramana had virtually stayed the sedition provision of IPC by directing the Centre and States not to register any further FIR related to such an offence.

The fresh plea challenged the constitutional validity of Section 152 of the BNS, 2023 for being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution.

"The provision, in effect, reintroduces the colonial sedition law previously codified as Section 124A, under a new nomenclature. Though the language is altered, its substantive content—criminalising vague and broad categories of speech and expression such as “subversive activity,” “encouragement of separatist feelings,” and acts “endangering unity or integrity of India”—remains the same or is even more expansive," the plea said.

It contended that Section 152 of the BNS is nothing but a repackaged sedition law, reinstated despite the pending challenge and suspension of Section 124A.

"Section 152 criminalises a wide spectrum of expressive conduct, including those who “purposely or knowingly” use words—spoken ,written, electronic, symbolic, or financial—to “excite or attempt to excite” secession, rebellion, or subversive activities," it said.

Its sweeping language, including phrases like “encouraging feelings of separatist activities,” fails the test of constitutional validity due to vagueness, overbreadth, disproportionate punishment, and absence of proximate nexus to public disorder, it further contended.

Section 152 prescribed life imprisonment or up to seven years with fine.

"The severity of the punishment is disproportionate, especially given that the acts in question may consist entirely of speech, expression, or symbolic conduct, without any actual or imminent threat to public order. Equating political expression or dissent with armed rebellion without requiring evidence of actual harm is constitutionally excessive and arbitrary. Moreover, the provision fails to establish a graded punishment," the plea contended.

Senior advocate P B Suresh and advocate Prasanna S, appeared for the petitioner.