Rajasthan High Court on Section 152 BNS: Misuse to Stifle Dissent Discouraged
The Rajasthan High Court recently addressed the application of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), emphasizing that it must not be used to suppress legitimate dissent. The provision, criminalizing acts endangering the unity and integrity of India, was deemed by Justice Arun Monga to resemble Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (sedition), albeit under a new guise.
The case involved Sikh preacher Tejender Pal Singh, who faced charges under Sections 152 and 197(1)(c) of BNS for expressing sympathy toward pro-Khalistan leader Amritpal Singh in a Facebook video. The court quashed the FIR, citing a lack of intent to incite violence or threaten national integrity.
Key Observations
- Section 152 BNS and Sedition: The Court noted that Section 152 BNS reintroduces elements of the repealed sedition law. It criminalizes incitement of secession, rebellion, or subversive activities but must not penalize lawful dissent.
- Safeguards Against Misuse: The explanatory provision exempts lawful criticism of government policies, ensuring a balance between national security and freedom of expression.
- Narrow Application Required: The Court highlighted that laws restricting speech should be narrowly tailored and invoked only where there is a direct and imminent threat of rebellion or secession.
- Judicial Oversight: Proper judicial guidelines are necessary to prevent the misuse of terms like “disharmony” and “ill-will,” which could stifle constructive dialogue.
Context of the Case
Justice Monga observed that the petitioner’s comments, made in colloquial Punjabi, did not incite rebellion or endanger national integrity. Expressions such as “the country does not belong to anyone’s father” were interpreted as emphasizing equality among citizens rather than fostering discord.
The Court also clarified that the mere likelihood of disharmony does not suffice to invoke Section 197 BNS, absent intent or material evidence of inciting hatred or violence.
Verdict
The Court quashed the FIR against Tejender Pal Singh, stating that his statements lacked malicious intent or potential to disrupt public order. This underscored the need for law enforcement restraint in cases involving political dissent to uphold democratic values.
Advocates Vikas Balia and Nitin Goklani represented the petitioner, while Public Prosecutor Vikram Singh Rajpurohit appeared for the State.
