The Supreme Court Today (Aug 12) ordered no coercive action against The Wire Editor Siddharth Varadarajan in an Assam FIR under BNS Section 152 and issued notice to the Centre and Assam.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed that police must not take any coercive action against The Wire Editor Siddharth Varadarajan in the FIR filed by Assam Police under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with endangering the sovereignty and integrity of India.
The Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi also sent notice to the Central government and the State of Assam on the petition, which questions the constitutional validity of Section 152 of the BNS, a provision that is being viewed as replacing the old sedition law under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.
“Issue notice. Meanwhile the members of the petitioner foundation against whom FIR has been registered on 11.7.2024 may join the investigation as and when required. However, no coercive action may be taken against them,”
-the Court directed.
The Court was informed that a similar petition challenging the vires of Section 152 is already pending before the Supreme Court.
After hearing this, the Bench issued notice and tagged the present matter with that pending case.
“We are informed that the vires of Section 152 is also in challenge in which notice has been issued by the CJI. Tag this matter,”
-the order said.
The present FIR was filed against The Wire and Siddharth Varadarajan for an article about comments attributed to India’s defence attache concerning the loss of Indian Air Force fighter jets to Pakistan during the recent military operation known as Operation Sindoor.
The article, titled “IAF Lost Fighter Jets to Pak Because of Political Leadership’s Constraints’: Indian Defence Attache,” was published on June 29. A private complainant approached the police with a complaint about this report.
As per the petition, the complainant’s information reached the petitioners through sources, and the petitioners say they have reliable inputs that the police may attempt surprise arrests.
The plea explains that the article reported factual details from a seminar hosted by a university in Indonesia and covered statements by Indian defence personnel, including India’s military attache to Indonesia, regarding lost IAF jets and tactics used during Operation Sindoor.
” The Wire’s updated story reflected the Embassy’s comment in the blurb. Notably, the same seminar and the officer’s statements there were widely reported in news channels/ websites across India, including by leading news websites such as The Indian Express, Hindustan Times, The Tribune, Financial Express, The Print, India Today, Frontline, etc.”
The petition further claims that the complainant is a member and office-bearer of the ruling party in Assam, and therefore, the State’s attempt to target the petitioners cannot be ruled out.
The petitioners argue that the article did not carry any misleading content, nor did it include any speech that could threaten India’s sovereignty, integrity, or security; rather, it included the government’s version in full.
“No misleading information was published in the impugned article, nor any speech made that would threaten the sovereignty or integrity or security of the country. The Government’s version was in fact quoted in the story in full,”
-the plea said.
The petitioners contend that Section 152 of the BNS is, in effect, identical to the old Section 124A (sedition) of the IPC. The Supreme Court had earlier kept Section 124A in abeyance and restrained States from registering FIRs under it until its constitutionality is finally decided.
ALSO READ: Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav Takes Oath as Delhi High Court Judge, Strength of Judges Now 44
According to the petitioners, despite the Supreme Court’s interim stand on sedition, Section 152 of the BNS is now being used in a manner that goes against the spirit of that order, chilling free speech and targeting the media, and this FIR is one such example.
“The Court recently issued notice in a separate petition contesting Section 152…The new clause is vague but essentially has the same effect,”
-Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan said on behalf of the petitioners.
“Does the mere potentiality of abuse declare a law unconstitutional? We said this in the PMLA case yesterday as well,”
-Justice Bagchi remarked.
“Vagueness is an accepted ground for challenge,”
-Ramakrishnan responded.
“Section 152 applies only where there is a clear threat to national sovereignty, otherwise, it is not triggered,”
-Justice Kant said.
“Section 152 is purely an expression without substantive backing,”
-Ramakrishnan said.
“Just because a certain provision can be misused does not mean we strike it down,”
-Justice Kant underscored.
“Can media persons be treated as a separate class,”
-asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on behalf of the government.
The Solicitor General also submitted that a person cannot seek anticipatory bail and simultaneously challenge the constitutional validity of a statutory provision in the same petition.
After hearing all sides briefly, the Court granted interim protection by ordering no coercive steps and issued notice, tagging the case with the already pending petition that challenges Section 152 of the BNS.
| Aspect | Section 124A – IPC (Old Sedition Law) | Section 152 – BNS (New Law) |
|---|---|---|
| Law Name | Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 |
| Main Focus | Punishes speech or acts that bring hatred or contempt against the government | Punishes acts aimed at exciting secession, rebellion, or subversive activities against India |
| Key Language Used | “Whoever by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government…” | “Whoever purposely or knowingly, by words (spoken/written), electronic communication, financial means, or signs, excites or attempts to excite secession, armed rebellion, or subversive activities…” |
| Punishment | Imprisonment for life, or up to 3 years, with or without fine | Imprisonment for life, or up to 7 years, and fine |
| Vagueness/Scope Criticism | Criticized for being too broad and vague, leading to misuse | Allegedly broader and more vague than Section 124A, includes terms like “subversive activities” and “secession” |
| Status | Suspended by Supreme Court on May 11, 2022 | Active – currently under challenge in the Supreme Court |
| Petitioner’s Claim | Violates Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution | Called a “repackaged sedition law”; alleged to violate the same constitutional rights |
| Quote from Petition | N/A | “Section 152 criminalises a wide spectrum of expressive conduct… fails the test of constitutional validity due to vagueness, overbreadth, chilling effect…” |
| Judicial Concern | Court paused use due to misuse and constitutional concerns | Supreme Court has now issued notice to the Centre to justify its constitutional validity |
CASE TITLE:
FOUNDATION FOR INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM AND ANR. vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
W.P.(Crl.) No. 316/2025
READ LIVE COVERAGE:
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on New Sedition Law
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
