IAS/UPSC Coaching Institute  

20 Aug 2025 : Sedition redux

 Editorial 2: ​​Sedition redux

Context

New sedition law threatens freedom of expression further

 

Introduction

The repeated misuse of police powers to target journalists exposes the fragility of press freedom in India. The Assam Police’s summons under Section 152 of the BNS highlights how rebranded sedition laws are being weaponised against dissent. Without judicial safeguards, such actions risk silencing critical voices and undermining the democratic framework.

 

Misuse of Police Powers Against Journalists

  • Filing frivolous cases and summoning journalists without proper evidence has become a routine tactic in states led by intolerant political leadership.
  • The Assam Police recently summoned Siddharth Varadarajan (Founding Editor, The Wire) and Karan Thapar(Consulting Editor, The Wire) under Section 152 of the BNS.
  • This move reflects a pattern of intimidation and suppression of press freedom.

 

Assam Police’s Actions and Their Timing

  • The summons were issued by the Guwahati Crime Branch in connection with a fresh sedition FIR on August 12, 2025.
  • This coincided with the Supreme Court’s notice on The Wire’s petition questioning the constitutionality of Section 152.
  • On the same day, the Court had also protected the journalists from coercive action, making the Assam Police’s move egregious and defiant.
  • Another summons, linked to a case at Morigaon Police Station, reportedly relates to The Wire’s report on Operation Sindoor.
  • The summons were procedurally flawed —
    • No FIR date mentioned
    • No details of alleged offence
    • No copy of FIR attached
  • Such omissions, despite being mandatory under BNSS, point towards police intimidation.

 

Section 152 – A Rebranded Sedition Law

  • Critics had feared Section 152 is merely a revamped version of the colonial-era sedition law (Section 124A).
  • The provision is more expansive and dangerous because:
    • It lowers the bar for prosecution by using vague terms such as “knowingly”.
    • It allows action even without malicious intent, unlike Section 124A which required proof of intent.
    • Ambiguity around terms like “sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India” enables broad misuse.
    • Even legitimate criticism of government policy can be construed as a threat to unity.
  • The law creates a chilling effect on free expression and enables targeting of dissenters.

 

Judicial Oversight and the Way Forward

  • The Supreme Court’s intervention in The Wire’s case highlights the potential misuse of Section 152.
  • However, the Assam Police’s defiance underscores the need for stronger judicial safeguards and clear guidelines.
  • The onus lies on the Court to declare such sedition laws — whether colonial or rebranded — as unconstitutional.
  • Such laws have no place in a democracy, where dissent and press freedom are essential pillars of governance.

 

Conclusion

The controversy around Section 152 reaffirms fears of a chilling effect on free speech. By lowering the threshold for prosecution, it emboldens state authorities to intimidate critics. Only through judicial intervention and rejection of unconstitutional sedition laws can India safeguard democracy, protect journalistic freedom, and ensure that dissent remains a vital pillar of public discourse.