Open Access Research Article
BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF INDIAN CRIMINAL LAW: A CRITICAL COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS WITH THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
Abstract
The
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC),
with the relevant provisions coming into force on 1 July 2024. One of the most
significant changes concerns the removal of the express offence of sedition
under Section 124A of the IPC and the introduction of Section 152 of the BNS,
titled “Act endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.” This paper
critically examines whether this change represents substantive decolonisation
of Indian criminal law or whether it creates a differently framed offence
capable of producing similar restrictions on political expression.
The
paper compares the wording, protected interests, mental elements, modes of
commission, explanations and punishments under both provisions. It examines the
colonial origins of sedition, the constitutional interpretation developed in Kedar
Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, and the relevance of decisions such as Romesh
Thappar v. State of Madras, Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, Balwant
Singh v. State of Punjab, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India and S.G.
Vombatkere v. Union of India. It also analyses Section 152 through Articles
14, 19(1)(a), 19(2) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The
paper argues that Section 152 is not textually identical to Section 124A. It
focuses on sovereignty, unity and integrity, expressly refers to secession,
armed rebellion and subversive activities, and incorporates the words
“purposely or knowingly.” Nevertheless, expressions such as “subversive
activities,” “encourages feelings of separatist activities,” “endangers” and
“or otherwise” raise concerns about vagueness, overbreadth and arbitrary
enforcement. The absence of an express, general violence-or-public-disorder
threshold in the operative text makes constitutional interpretation
particularly important.[1]
The
paper concludes that Section 152 must be interpreted narrowly and applied
through evidence-based procedures. Courts should distinguish peaceful dissent,
journalism, academic research and lawful advocacy from intentional or knowing
participation in concrete prohibited activities. The constitutional quality of
the reform will ultimately depend on statutory clarity, judicial interpretation
and the discipline with which the offence is enforced.
[1] Indian Penal Code, 1860, Act 45 of 1860, Section 124A,
subject to applicable repeal, savings and transitional provisions.
Published Paper
Author Details
Authors: VIVEK PRADHANRegistration ID: 1013382 | Published Paper ID: IJLRA13382Approved ISSN: 2582-6433 | Country: Delhi, IndiaPage No.: 1342- 1375
Article Information
BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF INDIAN CRIMINAL LAW: A CRITICAL COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS WITH THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
Authors: VIVEK PRADHAN
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Volume 3
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- AbbreviationIJLRA
- ISSN2582-6433
- AccessOpen Access
- LicenseCC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.