Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which criminalizes actions threatening India’s unity and integrity, must not be used to suppress legitimate dissent or criticism. The Court emphasized that freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed under the Constitution, must be upheld, and dissent cannot be equated with sedition or anti-national acts.

Case Background

The ruling came in response to a plea by Sikh preacher Tejender Pal Singh, who was charged under Section 152 and Section 197(1)(c) of the BNS. Singh was accused of supporting a pro-Khalistan leader in a Facebook video. The Court quashed the First Information Report (FIR) against him, citing a lack of evidence that his statements incited violence or threatened India’s unity. Judging was made by Justice Arun Monga.

Key Observations by the Court

Section 152 BNS and Sedition:

  • Section 152 BNS is similar to the repealed Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which dealt with sedition.
  • It criminalizes acts that incite secession, armed rebellion, or subversive activities, or promote separatist sentiments.
  • The Court noted that while Section 152 appears to reintroduce sedition under a different name, it includes safeguards to protect lawful criticism of government policies.

Intent and Context Matter:

  • The Court emphasized that only deliberate actions with malicious intent (mens rea) should fall under Section 152.

  • Statements or expressions must have a direct and imminent connection to rebellion or violence to be considered criminal.

Balancing National Security and Rights:

The explanatory note to Section 152 ensures that lawful political dissent is not stifled. The Court stressed that broad and vague laws must be applied narrowly to avoid misuse.

placeholder

Language and Interpretation:

  • The Court highlighted the expressive nature of Punjabi language, which can sometimes appear offensive without malicious intent.

  • It found that Singh’s statements, including “the country does not belong to anyone's father,” were expressions of equality and not calls for rebellion.

Section 197(1)(c) of BNS:

  • This section, similar to Section 153B of the IPC, targets acts prejudicial to national integration.
  • The Court clarified that mere likelihood of disharmony is insufficient to invoke this section without clear intent or evidence of actual harm.

Court’s Decision

The Court concluded that Singh’s comments did not incite rebellion, violence, or public disorder. It quashed the FIR and all related proceedings, reinforcing that dissent and criticism are vital components of a democratic society.

Guidance for Authorities

The Court urged law enforcement to:

  • Exercise restraint and discretion to avoid stifling constructive dialogue.

  • Ensure judicial oversight and clarity in interpreting terms like “disharmony” and “ill-will.”

  • Use laws as a shield for national security, not a sword against dissent.

This judgment underscores the importance of protecting freedom of speech while ensuring national security. It sends a strong message that criticism of the government, unless it incites violence or endangers unity, cannot be treated as a criminal offense.

The Court advised police and authorities to handle such cases carefully and not misuse laws to suppress healthy debate or political dissent. It stressed the importance of balancing national security with individual freedoms. This judgment sends a clear message: criticizing the government is not a crime, and laws meant to protect the country should not be used to silence the voices of its people.