Source: Rajasthan High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Arun Monga held that Section 152 of BNS should not be used to cripple legitimate dissent and only deliberate actions with malicious intent would fall within the ambit of this provision.                      

• The Rajasthan High Court held this in the case of Tejender Pal Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr (2024). 

What was the Background of Tejender Pal Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.  Case?  

• The complainant alleged that the petitioner, Tejendrapal Singh Timma, posted a Facebook video on July 5, 2024, from Baba Deep Singh Gurudwara, expressing sympathy for MP Amritpal Singh, who is in judicial custody in Assam. 
• The petitioner is accused of making anti-national statements advocating for Khalistan, which allegedly hurt the complainant's religious sentiments and risked inciting public unrest. 
• The complaint further accuses the petitioner of associating with pro-Khalistan individuals and displaying Khalistan flags at public events. 
• The First Information Report (FIR) claims the petitioner made treasonous comments, supported Khalistan, and threatened public officials in earlier incidents. 
• Alleged prior actions include threats and provocative statements in front of government offices and supporting a separatist movement. 
• The FIR was filed under Section 152 and Section 197 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).   
• The petitioner seeks the quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings, citing false allegations, delay, and lack of substantive evidence. 
• Thus, the matter was before the High Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court observed that the provision under Section 152 of BNS should be read and interpreted in such a way that it mandatorily requires mens rea i.e. the act must be committed purposely or knowingly. 
• Laws that limit speech must be specific and only apply when there is a clear and immediate risk of rebellion or secession; simply voicing dissent or criticism is not the same as sedition or anti-national activity. 
• These laws should be interpreted in line with the constitutional right to free speech, ensuring they protect democratic freedoms and do not suppress legitimate expression. 
• The provision must be interpreted in conjunction with the constitutional rights to free speech and expression to ensure it does not infringe on democratic freedoms. 
• The Court further observed that both the provisions Section 152 and Section 197 of BNS should be given a strict interpretation, and the provisions must be balanced with the constitutional right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). 
• Thus, in order to attract these offences there must be a direct nexus between the impugned act and the likelihood of causing disharmony or hatred. 
• In the present facts the Court observed that the Punjabi language's expressive and direct nature might make statements seem offensive, but there was no malicious intent or evidence of intent to incite unrest or violence in the petitioner's video.
• The Court concluded that the video conveyed a message of equality among citizens of India, without any attempt to incite rebellion, separatism, or endanger India's sovereignty, leading to the quashing of the FIR as no offense under Section 152 or 197 of the BNS was established. 

What is Sedition under BNS?

• Under BNS, it can be said that the offence of sedition is provided under Section 152 of BNS. 
• This provision has it’s genesis in Section 124 A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
  • Offence of Sedition was originally introduced in year 1870 by the British Government for punishing the acts of hatred or contempt or disaffection towards Her Majesty or the Crown 
• The offence of sedition under section 124-A of IPC has though been done away in the BNS, but a new provision in section 152, somewhat similarly worded, has been brought in by the law makers in Parliament. 
• It criminalizes acts or attempts that incite secession, armed rebellion, or subversive activities, or encourage separatist sentiments that threaten the country’s stability 
• Prima facie it appears that this provision has reintroduced Section 124A of IPC, however, it is unclear which of the two provisions is more stringent. 
• It is to be noted that the punishment under Section 124A was either life imprisonment or up to 3 years imprisonment to which fine may be added.  
• However, under BNS the punishment provided is either life imprisonment or seven years imprisonment and a mandatory fine.  
• The provision is aimed at maintaining national integrity and preventing destabilization. 
• The legislature has by way of this provisions aimed to curb the acts that could fragment the country given the India’s history mad diversity of secessionist movements. 

What is the Difference Between Section 124A of IPC and Section 152 of BNS?

What are the Important Case Laws on Sedition? 

• Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962): 
  • It was determined that the law was constitutional and that it applied to any written or spoken words that had the affirmative intention of circumventing the government through violent means, regardless of their source. 
  • Citizens who condemn the government with the aim of creating public disorder are permitted to do so, so long as they do not incite people to engage in violence against the government. 
  • While the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 124A, it limited its application to acts involving the intent or inclination to create public disorder, disruption of law and order, or provocation of violence among other things. 
  • As the court pointed out, the essence of the crime of “sedition” is the incitement to violence or the inclination or the intention to cause public disorder through words spoken or in a written form that has the potential or the impact of inciting hatred or contempt for the government established by law, or of causing disaffection in the sense of distrust to the state.
• Dr Vinayak Binayak Sen v. State of Chattisgarh (2011):
  • Supreme Court redefined a seditious act only if it had essential ingredients as: 
    • Disruption of public order. 
    • Attempt to violently overthrow a lawful government, 
    • Threatening the security of the State or public.