The Rajasthan High Court emphasized the cautious application of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, stating it should not target legitimate dissent. While quashing an FIR against Sikh preacher Tejender Pal Singh, the Court affirmed that only malicious acts fall under this law, and lawful political criticism must be protected, maintaining a balance between national security and individual rights.
Rajasthan: The Rajasthan High Court recently emphasized that Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which criminalizes acts endangering India’s unity and integrity, should be used cautiously and not as a weapon against legitimate dissent. This observation was made by Justice Arun Monga while quashing an FIR against Sikh preacher Tejender Pal Singh, who had posted a video expressing sympathy for pro-Khalistan leader Amritpal Singh.
The Court highlighted that Section 152 BNS is reminiscent of Section 124A of the repealed Indian Penal Code (IPC), commonly known as the sedition law.
“It criminalizes acts or attempts that incite secession, armed rebellion, or subversive activities, or encourage separatist sentiments that threaten the country’s stability. Prima facie, it appears to be reintroducing Section 124A (sedition) by another name,” the Court noted.
However, the Court stressed that only deliberate actions with malicious intent fall under its ambit. It further added that the explanatory provision to Section 152 offers a safeguard by exempting lawful criticism of government policies.
“Explanatory provision thus provides the balancing Act. It balances national security with individual rights, ensuring that lawful political dissent is not stifled under the pretext of maintaining sovereignty,“
the Court observed.
The Court underscored that laws restricting speech must be narrowly applied to ensure they do not suppress lawful dissent.
“Legitimate dissent or criticism cannot be equated with sedition or anti-national acts,” it remarked, adding that a direct and imminent connection between speech and rebellion or secession must exist to invoke such provisions.
It further called for judicial oversight and clear guidelines to prevent misuse of Section 152.
Regarding Section 197(1)(c) of BNS, which corresponds to Section 153B of the IPC, the Court clarified that acts fostering enmity must result in actual disharmony to be punishable. Mere unpopular views or controversial statements do not qualify unless they incite violence or hatred.
The Court examined the petitioner’s comments made in Punjabi, acknowledging the expressive nature of the language. It concluded that colloquial expressions, though direct, do not imply malice unless they lead to tangible harm or public unrest.
For instance, the Court analyzed the statement, “Tuhanu pehlan kehasiga ke desh kise de piyo da niga, har bande nu jawab dena aunda hai,” and opined that it merely conveyed the equality of citizens.
The Court determined that the petitioner’s comments neither incited rebellion nor endangered India’s sovereignty. It quashed the FIR and related proceedings, underscoring the importance of protecting dissent and constructive dialogue.
The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Vikas Balia with advocate Nitin Goklani, while Public Prosecutor Vikram Singh Rajpurohit appeared for the State.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
