Sedition-Like Law in the New Penal Code: Continuity and Change
The introduction of the new penal code, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), marks a major reform in India’s criminal justice system. One of the most debated aspects of this reform is the replacement of the colonial-era sedition law with a new provision that criminalises acts threatening the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India. Although the word “sedition” has been removed, the new provision has led to widespread discussion about whether the essence of sedition still survives under a different name.
Under the earlier Indian Penal Code, Section 124A defined sedition and was often criticised for being vague and overly broad. It criminalised words or actions that brought “hatred or contempt” against the government. Over time, this provision was frequently used against political critics, journalists, activists, and students.
Critics argued that it suppressed free speech and dissent, which are essential in a democratic society. Recognising these concerns, the Supreme Court in 2022 effectively put the sedition law on hold and asked the government to reconsider it.
In response, the government introduced the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which officially removed Section 124A. Instead, the new law includes a provision that punishes acts such as inciting secession, armed rebellion, or encouraging activities that threaten the nation’s sovereignty and unity. The stated intention behind this change is to focus on genuine threats to national security rather than on criticism of the government. According to the government, the new provision is narrower and more precise than the old sedition law.
Supporters of the new law argue that every country has the right to protect itself against serious threats such as terrorism, separatist movements, and violent uprisings. In a country as diverse and large as India, they believe that strong legal safeguards are necessary to maintain national unity. From this perspective, removing the outdated term “sedition” while retaining protection against serious anti-national activities is seen as a reasonable reform.
However, critics remain unconvinced. They point out that although the language has changed, the core concern remains the same: the possibility of misuse. Some terms in the new provision, such as acts that “endanger the sovereignty or integrity of India,” are seen as open to interpretation. Critics fear that these phrases could still be used to target peaceful dissent, protests, or unpopular opinions, especially if authorities interpret them broadly. As a result, many argue that the new law risks continuing the same problems that existed under the sedition provision.
The current situation reflects this tension. While the new penal code has come into force, its practical application is being closely watched by legal experts, civil society groups, and the media. Courts are expected to play a crucial role in interpreting the provision and setting clear limits on its use. Judicial oversight will be essential to ensure that only serious threats to national security are punished, and not legitimate criticism or democratic expression.
This debate highlights a deeper issue within democratic governance: the balance between national security and individual freedom. No state can function without laws that protect its existence and stability. At the same time, democracy depends on the freedom to question authority, express disagreement, and hold those in power accountable. When laws dealing with national security are drafted or enforced without sufficient safeguards, they risk weakening democratic values.
In conclusion, the sedition-like law in the new penal code represents both change and continuity. While the removal of the colonial sedition provision is symbolically important, concerns remain about whether the new law truly breaks from the past. Its success will depend not only on its wording but also on how responsibly it is enforced. A careful, restrained approach—guided by constitutional values and judicial interpretation—will be essential to ensure that national security is protected without sacrificing the fundamental right to free expression.
