New Sedition Law Threatens Freedom of Expression Further
Why in News
The issue of press freedom and freedom of expression in India has resurfaced with the Assam Police’s move to summon journalists Siddharth Varadarajan and Karan Thapar of The Wire under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). This development has reignited fears that the newly enacted sedition law is simply a rebranded version of the colonial-era law, one that can be used to suppress dissent and silence criticism of the government.
On August 12, the Supreme Court had issued a notice on The Wire’s petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 152, the new sedition provision, and had protected the journalists from any coercive action by Assam Police. Despite this, the police issued fresh summons on the same day, indicating a growing conflict between state authorities and judicial safeguards.
Introduction
Freedom of expression and press freedom form the backbone of a functioning democracy. In India, these rights are enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. However, recent developments regarding the new sedition law — Section 152 of the BNS — have raised grave concerns. Critics argue that instead of strengthening democratic freedoms, this provision threatens to weaken them even further.
The Assam Police’s actions against The Wire editors are emblematic of how sedition provisions are increasingly being used as a tool for political vendetta. Journalists and citizens alike fear that Section 152 has dangerously vague language, making it easier for authorities to misuse the law against anyone critical of the government. This case is not just about one media outlet, but about the broader chilling effect such laws can have on democratic dialogue in India.
Key Issues and Background
The controversy centers around the following issues:
- Targeting of Journalists:
- Siddharth Varadarajan and Karan Thapar were summoned by Assam Police under Section 152 of the BNS. The summons were related to The Wire’s report on “Operation Sin-door.”
- These summons lacked essential details, including the FIR number, date, or alleged offence, violating mandatory procedural norms.
- Timing of the Summons:
- The summons were issued on August 12, the same day when the Supreme Court intervened in The Wire’s petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 152.
- The SC had barred Assam Police from taking any coercive action, yet the police proceeded with intimidation.
- Vagueness of Section 152:
- Critics argue that Section 152 is even more expansive than the repealed Section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code.
- It uses broad terms like “knowingly” or “endangering unity” without requiring proof of intent to incite violence.
- This drastically lowers the threshold for prosecution.
- Political Misuse of Law:
- In states ruled by vindictive political regimes, filing cases against dissenting voices has become common.
- Section 152 could provide an even sharper tool for intimidation of political opponents, activists, and journalists.
- Judicial Oversight vs. State Defiance:
- While the SC has attempted to check misuse by keeping old sedition provisions in abeyance since 2022, state police forces appear defiant.
- Without stronger judicial safeguards, this defiance could erode constitutional protections.
Specific Impacts or Effects
The enactment and misuse of Section 152 carry far-reaching implications:
- Erosion of Press Freedom:
- Journalists questioning government narratives risk being targeted under the vague definitions of Section 152.
- Keeping FIR details secret and issuing summons without reasons intimidates media houses.
- Chilling Effect on Free Speech:
- Individuals, activists, and political opponents may self-censor to avoid legal harassment.
- Even legitimate criticism of policies may be construed as “endangering sovereignty, unity, or integrity.”
- Reintroduction of Colonial-Era Laws:
- Despite the government’s claims of reform, Section 152 mirrors — and even expands upon — colonial sedition laws.
- The old Section 124A required proof of intent to incite violence, whereas Section 152 does not.
- Weakening of Democratic Accountability:
- Free media is essential to holding governments accountable. Misuse of sedition laws erodes checks on executive power.
- Citizens may lose trust in the fairness of law enforcement.
- Judicial-Executive Conflict:
- The SC’s intervention to protect journalists contrasts sharply with state police defiance.
- This conflict undermines the rule of law and creates legal uncertainty.
Challenges and the Way Forward
- Vague Provisions of Section 152:
- The law must have clear definitions to prevent arbitrary misuse.
- Phrases like “knowingly” or “endangering unity” must be narrowed down legally.
- Lack of Procedural Transparency:
- Summons must carry FIR details, offence description, and a copy of the FIR.
- Secretive actions by police foster intimidation.
- Need for Judicial Oversight:
- Stronger judicial safeguards are necessary to check arbitrary police action.
- Clear SC guidelines on Section 152’s usage are essential.
- Balancing Security and Freedom:
- While national unity and security are important, they must not come at the cost of silencing dissent.
- A balance must be struck where criticism is encouraged but incitement to violence is punished.
- Recognising the Unconstitutionality:
- The Supreme Court now faces the challenge of declaring Section 152 unconstitutional.
- A complete repeal, not a rebranding of sedition laws, is required to safeguard democracy.
Conclusion
The Assam Police’s actions against The Wire editors highlight the continuing misuse of sedition provisions in India. Section 152 of the BNS, far from being a reform, has emerged as an even more dangerous version of the colonial-era law. Its vague and expansive provisions lower the threshold for prosecution, allowing authorities to target individuals for mere criticism of government policy. This creates a chilling effect on press freedom and weakens democracy.
Judicial intervention is now crucial. Without strong oversight and constitutional safeguards, Section 152 risks becoming a powerful weapon to silence dissent. The Supreme Court must recognize its unconstitutionality and ensure that sedition laws, whether in old or new form, are permanently discarded in a democratic society.
5 Questions and Answers
Q1. What is Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)?
Section 152 is the new sedition provision under the BNS. It criminalises acts that are deemed to “endanger the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.” However, it uses vague terms such as “knowingly,” lowering the bar for prosecution and making it easier to target dissent.
Q2. Why is Section 152 being criticized?
Critics argue that Section 152 is even more draconian than the old sedition law (Section 124A of IPC). It does not require proof of intent to incite violence and can criminalize even legitimate criticism of government policies. Its vague language provides excessive powers to law enforcement agencies.
Q3. What role has the Supreme Court played in this issue?
The SC has kept sedition cases under Section 124A in abeyance since 2022. It also issued notice on The Wire’s petition challenging Section 152 and protected the journalists from coercive action. However, police actions suggest that judicial safeguards are being ignored by state authorities.
Q4. How does Section 152 affect press freedom in India?
Section 152 creates a chilling effect on press freedom. Journalists questioning government narratives can be easily targeted. Summons without FIR details, secrecy in police actions, and vague charges intimidate media houses, discouraging independent reporting.
Q5. What is the way forward for India regarding sedition laws?
The way forward involves repealing sedition laws in all forms, ensuring clear legal definitions, and strengthening judicial safeguards. Balancing national security with freedom of expression is essential, but dissent must not be criminalized. Only then can India uphold democratic values and protect its constitutional freedoms.
