Abstract
Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) criminalizes acts threatening India’s sovereignty, unity, and integrity, addressing secessionist incitement, armed rebellion, and subversive activities. While pivotal for national security, its implementation is fraught with challenges, including vague language, misuse against dissent, law enforcement training gaps, digital enforcement hurdles, judicial delays, and systemic incompetence among authorities. This paper critically examines these issues through judicial precedents and proposes reforms to balance national security with constitutional rights. Recommendations include issuing precise guidelines, specialized training, technological upgrades, fast-track courts, and institutional accountability mechanisms to address authority incompetence. By integrating these measures, India can ensure Section 152 serves its intended purpose without undermining democratic values.
KEYWORDS:
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 152, Sovereignty, Authority Incompetence, Judicial Reforms.
- Introduction:
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) marks a transformative shift in India’s criminal justice system, replacing the colonial-era Indian Penal Code (IPC). Section 152, which criminalizes acts endangering national sovereignty and integrity, is a key pillar in safeguarding national security. However, its implementation faces significant challenges, from interpretational ambiguities to systemic inefficiencies in enforcement. This paper evaluates these challenges and suggests reforms to ensure that Section 152 is applied effectively without compromising democratic values.
The concept of sovereignty is deeply embedded in constitutional jurisprudence, as reflected in landmark cases such as [1]Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), which upheld sovereignty as a basic structure of the Constitution. However, in practical terms, ensuring sovereignty through legal measures requires a balanced approach that does not infringe on fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and expression. The challenges associated with Section 152 are further highlighted when compared with colonial-era sedition laws like Section 124A of the IPC, which has been widely criticized for suppressing dissent and being misused for political ends.
[1]Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) AIR 1973 SC 1461