The Rajasthan High Court’s 2024 ruling in Tejender Pal Singh v. State of Rajasthan has brought Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) under scrutiny. The court cautioned against its misuse, emphasizing the fine line between safeguarding national security and suppressing valid criticism or peaceful dissent.
Key Differences Between Section 152 (BNS) and Section 124A (IPC)
- Terminology and Scope:
- Section 124A (IPC): Criminalizes acts inciting hatred, contempt, or disaffection against the government, defined as sedition.
- Section 152 (BNS): Broader in scope, criminalizing actions endangering India’s sovereignty, unity, and integrity, such as inciting rebellion or separatism.
- Penalties:
- Section 124A: Punishable by life imprisonment or a minimum of three years, along with an optional fine.
- Section 152: Harsher penalties, including life imprisonment or up to seven years, with a mandatory fine.
- Intent Requirement:
- Section 124A: Requires proof of intent to incite disaffection.
- Section 152: Reduces this threshold, allowing prosecution if a person “knowingly” shares information that could incite rebellion, even without malicious intent.
Impact on Freedom of Speech and Legitimate Dissent
- Chilling Effect on Free Speech:
- The ambiguous language of Section 152 may discourage individuals from expressing dissent or criticism, fearing legal repercussions.
- Potential for Misuse:
- Its broad scope enables law enforcement agencies to interpret it expansively, potentially criminalizing legitimate dissent under the guise of protecting national security.
- Judicial Oversight:
- The Rajasthan High Court stressed that Section 152 must be applied judiciously, ensuring valid criticism is not equated with acts of rebellion or sedition.
Legal and Constitutional Implications
- Violation of Fundamental Rights:
- Enforcement of Section 152 could infringe upon Articles 14 (Equality) and 19 (Freedom of Speech) of the Indian Constitution due to vague definitions and arbitrary enforcement.
- Judicial Precedents:
- Courts have upheld the principle that there must be a direct link between speech and its harmful impact. This precedent must guide the application of Section 152.
- Need for Clarity:
- Ambiguities in Section 152 necessitate clear guidelines from the judiciary to delineate boundaries between valid criticism and threats to national security.
Way Forward
- Establish Clear Guidelines:
- The Supreme Court should issue precise guidelines for applying Section 152, balancing national security with freedom of speech.
- Promote Judicial Oversight:
- Courts should actively monitor cases under Section 152 to ensure its fair application and prevent misuse.
- Encourage Proportionality:
- Enforcement authorities must demonstrate a tangible link between the speech and its potential harm to national security, ensuring proportionality in legal action.
Mains PYQ (2014)
Q: What do you understand by the concept of “freedom of speech and expression”? Does it cover hate speech? Why do films in India stand on a slightly different plane from other forms of expression? Discuss.
