REVISITING SEDITION IN INDIA: CONSTITUTIONAL CONTINUITY AND CHANGE FROM THE IPC TO THE BNS

Abstract

The law of sedition in India has undergone a significant constitutional and legislative transformation, evolving from its colonial origins under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to the contemporary framework of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. This paper examines the historical development, judicial interpretation, and constitutional implications of sedition law in India, with particular emphasis on the relationship between national security and the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. It traces the colonial origins of Section 124A and its application against nationalist leaders and political dissenters, followed by the divergent judicial approaches adopted by the Federal Court and the Privy Council. The study further analyses the constitutional challenges to the provision and the landmark decision in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, which limited the application of sedition to acts involving incitement to violence or public disorder. The paper also examines subsequent judicial decisions that sought to distinguish legitimate criticism and political dissent from acts threatening public order and national security. Against this backdrop, the paper analyses the replacement of Section 124A IPC with Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, dealing with acts endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India. It critically evaluates whether the new provision represents a substantive departure from the colonial sedition law or merely expands the scope of criminalisation through broader terminology. The paper also explores the challenges posed by digital communication and social media in regulating speech. It concludes that while the protection of national sovereignty and security is a legitimate state objective, broadly worded criminal provisions may adversely affect democratic dissent and freedom of expression. Clear statutory standards and effective judicial oversight are therefore essential to maintain an appropriate balance between national security and individual liberties.