This article is for educational and legal awareness purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or solicitation. Please consult a qualified advocate for advice on specific legal matters.
Introduction
The offence of sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) was, for over a century, the subject of sustained constitutional controversy. With the repeal of the IPC and the coming into force of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) on 1 July 2024, the word “sedition” disappeared from the statute book. It was not, however, accompanied by the disappearance of a comparable offence. Section 152 BNS — titled “Act endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India” — now occupies the field. This article explains what Section 152 criminalises, how it differs from the sedition it replaced, and where the constitutional boundary of free speech lies.
The Text of Section 152 BNS
Section 152 BNS provides that whoever, purposely or knowingly, by words (spoken or written), by signs, by visible representation, by electronic communication, by use of financial means, or otherwise —
- excites or attempts to excite secession, armed rebellion, or subversive activities; or
- encourages feelings of separatist activities; or
- endangers the 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.
The offence is treated as cognizable and non-bailable under the classification scheme of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The Saving Clause
Section 152 carries an Explanation that operates as a statutory safeguard. It states that 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 the section, do not constitute an offence under it. In other words, lawful criticism of the Government — however sharp — is expressly carved out.
How Section 152 Differs from Sedition Under Section 124A IPC
The two provisions are not identical, and the differences matter.
The protected interest has changed. Section 124A IPC criminalised bringing into hatred or contempt, or exciting disaffection towards, “the Government established by law in India”. Section 152 BNS instead protects the “sovereignty, unity and integrity of India” — an abstract national entity rather than the government of the day. Critics have observed that this shift potentially widens the field, because the protected interest is broader and less precisely defined.
The triggering acts are differently described. Section 152 lists secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities, and separatist feelings. The term “subversive activities” is not defined in the BNS, and its open texture has been the principal subject of academic and judicial concern.
The mental element is express. Section 152 opens with the words “purposely or knowingly”. This is a deliberate insertion of a mens rea requirement on the face of the statute — something Section 124A did not state in those terms.
The word “sedition” is gone. While the offence is functionally a successor to sedition, the BNS does not use the term. This is significant because it was the offence labelled “sedition” — not the conduct — that the Supreme Court had placed under scrutiny.
The Constitutional Background — Kedar Nath Singh
Any discussion of sedition-type offences in India begins with Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955. There, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 124A IPC, but only by reading it down. The Court held that the section would be constitutional only if confined to acts involving incitement to violence or the tendency to create public disorder. Mere criticism of the Government, however strong, was held not to amount to sedition unless accompanied by incitement to violence or disorder.
This “incitement to violence” test became the constitutional touchstone. It is also the test that the saving clause in Section 152 BNS broadly reflects.
In 2022, in proceedings concerning the validity of Section 124A, the Supreme Court directed that the provision be kept in abeyance pending re-examination, and that no fresh cases be registered under it in the interim. Section 152 BNS came into force in that constitutional climate.
The Mens Rea Requirement — Tejender Pal Singh
One of the first detailed High Court interpretations of Section 152 came in Tejender Pal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2024:RJ-JD:34845 (Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Bench). The Court held that Section 152 must be interpreted in a manner that mandatorily requires mens rea — the act must be committed “purposely or knowingly”, with a high threshold of intent.
The Court observed that the provision applies only to deliberate acts undertaken with malicious intent, and that social-media activity critical of government actions does not, by itself, amount to inciting violence or rebellion. The Court emphasised that there must be a real connection between the impugned act and a tendency to endanger the sovereignty or unity of India — suspicion alone is insufficient.
High Courts have since reiterated, in the context of speech-related FIRs, that ideological criticism of the government does not attract Section 152 in the absence of incitement. (Readers may also wish to see the related judgment summary on this site: Section 152 BNS — criticism of government is not inciting rebellion.)
Where the Free-Speech Boundary Lies
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression. Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions in the interests of, among other things, the sovereignty and integrity of India and public order. Section 152 BNS must be read within these limits. Drawing the threads together, the boundary may be stated as follows:
- Protected: criticism of government policy, demands for repeal or alteration of laws by lawful means, political dissent, satire, and ideological disagreement — none of which incite secession, armed rebellion, or violence.
- Not protected: speech or conduct that, with the requisite intent, incites secession or armed rebellion, or has a real tendency to endanger the unity and integrity of India.
The constitutional safeguards — the saving clause within the section, the mens rea requirement, and the Kedar Nath Singh “incitement to violence” standard — operate together to keep ordinary political expression outside the reach of the provision.
Important Points to Remember
- Section 152 BNS replaces the offence of sedition; the word “sedition” no longer appears in the statute.
- The provision requires the act to be done “purposely or knowingly” — mens rea is built into its text.
- Lawful criticism of the Government, aimed at changing its policies by legitimate means, is expressly excluded by the Explanation to the section.
- The Kedar Nath Singh standard — incitement to violence or public disorder — remains the constitutional benchmark for offences of this kind.
- The undefined term “subversive activities” is the provision’s most debated feature; courts have read it narrowly, anchored to intent.
- Section 152 carries severe punishment — up to life imprisonment — and is treated as a cognizable, non-bailable offence.
Useful Resources
- India Code — Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- Indian Kanoon — Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar
- Indian Kanoon — search for Section 152 BNS judgments
- Constitution of India — Article 19
Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is for general legal awareness and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, advertisement, or solicitation. No reader should act or refrain from acting based on this information without seeking professional legal counsel. Advocate Akhil Singh and this website are not liable for any actions taken based on the content provided herein.