Section 152 BNS: The new sedition law and why the Supreme Court upheld it

Section 152 criminalises "acts endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India." It is narrower than Section 124A on paper: it requires a specific act, not just speech. It requires intent. And it uses the constitutional language of "sovereignty, unity, and integrity" rather than the colonial language of "disaffection towards the Government."

But critics argued it was substantively identical — a new label on an old weapon.

---

What the Court held

A three-judge bench upheld the constitutionality of Section 152, but read three crucial safeguards into it:

Safeguard	What It Means
Proximate nexus required	There must be a direct and immediate connection between the act and the threat to sovereignty. Speech that merely criticises the government — however harshly — does not endanger sovereignty
Mere possession is not an offence	Possessing material or holding ideological sympathy with a banned organisation is not enough. The prosecution must prove a specific act with specific intent
Peaceful protest is protected	The right to protest is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and (b). Section 152 does not criminalise civil disobedience, peaceful protest, or dissent

The Court effectively read Section 152 as a sedition provision that cannot be used against dissenters, journalists, students, or political opponents.

---

The open question

Whether these safeguards hold in practice depends on how trial courts, High Courts, and the Supreme Court itself apply them in individual cases. The colonial sedition law was also hedged with judicial safeguards over the decades — and was still systematically misused. The test of Section 152 will be in its implementation.

---

Prelims trap

"Section 152 BNS criminalises criticism of the government." False. The Court specifically held that criticism of the government, however harsh, does not endanger sovereignty.

---

Part of: Supreme Court Judgments: October to December 2025

Read next: Marital rape exception struck down · Places of Worship Act upheld