Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which criminalised sedition — defined as bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or contempt, or exciting or attempting to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law — has been abolished under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The words "sedition" and "disaffection" do not appear anywhere in the BNS. Section 152 BNS creates a new offence headed "Act endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India"; it reuses some of 124A's wording but penalises different conduct, and is not a re-enactment of sedition.
What changed
| Old law | New law | |
|---|---|---|
| Act | Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 |
| Section | 124A | No direct equivalent (Section 152 BNS is distinct) |
| Title | Sedition | (Abolished) |
| Change type | Abolished — sedition offence not re-enacted in the BNS |
Full statutory text
Section 124A IPC — Sedition (repealed w.e.f. 1 July 2024)
Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.
Explanation 1 — The expression "disaffection" includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity. Explanation 2 — Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section. Explanation 3 — Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.
Section 152 BNS — Act endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India (not a re-enactment of sedition)
Whoever, purposely or knowingly, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or by electronic communication or by use of financial mean, or otherwise, excites or attempts to excite, secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities, or encourages feelings of separatist activities or endangers sovereignty or unity and integrity of India; or indulges in or commits any such act shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation. — Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures, or administrative or other action of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means without exciting or attempting to excite the activities referred to in this section do not constitute an offence under this section.
Key differences
Sedition abolished — "disaffection" removed: The central concept of IPC 124A was "disaffection" towards the government. The BNS entirely removes this concept: the word "disaffection" does not appear in it, and no provision penalises bringing the Government established by law into hatred or contempt or exciting disaffection towards it. This represents the end of the colonial-era sedition offence, first inserted into the IPC by Act 27 of 1870 and substituted in its final form by Act 4 of 1898.
Section 152 BNS is not a re-enactment: Section 152 BNS creates a fundamentally different offence. It targets exciting or attempting to excite secession, armed rebellion or subversive activities, encouraging feelings of separatist activities, and endangering sovereignty or unity and integrity of India. The focus shifts from protecting the government from criticism to protecting the nation from existential threats. Its Explanation provides that comments expressing disapprobation of Government measures or action with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite those activities, do not constitute an offence under the section.
Expanded modes of commission and an express mental element: Section 152 BNS explicitly names "electronic communication" and "use of financial mean" as modes of commission, and opens with "purposely or knowingly". IPC 124A named words (spoken or written), signs and visible representation, followed by "or otherwise", and stated no express mental element.
Different punishment structure: Section 152 BNS prescribes imprisonment for life or imprisonment which may extend to seven years, and the offender "shall also be liable to fine". IPC 124A prescribed imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or fine alone. The maximum (imprisonment for life) is the same; the alternative term rises from three to seven years, and the fine-only option is gone.
Broader but different scope: While Section 152 names modern means (electronic, financial) expressly — 124A relied on the residual words "or otherwise" — it is narrower in one critical respect — it does not penalise "disaffection" or "contempt" towards the government. However, "subversive activities" and "separatist activities" are not defined in the BNS (the expressions appear only in Section 152), which leaves their scope to judicial interpretation. Section 152 is a single paragraph with one Explanation — electronic communication and financial means are modes of commission within the main provision itself.
Explanation preserving legitimate criticism: Section 152 BNS contains an Explanation that protects "comments expressing disapprobation of the measures, or administrative or other action of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means without exciting or attempting to excite the activities referred to in this section." It combines the subject matter of 124A's Explanation 2 (disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to their alteration by lawful means) and Explanation 3 (disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government) into one Explanation, now keyed to "the activities referred to in this section" instead of "hatred, contempt or disaffection". 124A's Explanation 1 (defining "disaffection") has no counterpart. On a reading of the combined wording, the qualifier "with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means" — which in 124A attached only to Explanation 2 — may now be read as attaching to criticism of administrative action as well.
What this means for practitioners
For pending sedition cases: The repeal of the IPC does not by itself terminate proceedings under Section 124A: Section 358(2) BNS provides that the repeal does not affect any liability, penalty or proceeding under the IPC, which may be continued "as if that Code had not been repealed", and Section 531(2)(a) BNSS keeps trials, inquiries and investigations pending on 1 July 2024 under the CrPC. Section 152 BNS cannot be substituted for conduct before 1 July 2024 — Article 20(1) of the Constitution bars conviction except for violation of a law in force at the time of the act.
For new cases: Prosecutors cannot invoke sedition for any conduct occurring on or after 1 July 2024. Where the conduct genuinely involves encouraging secession, armed rebellion, or subversive activities, Section 152 BNS is the appropriate charge. Practitioners must carefully distinguish between political dissent (protected under Article 19(1)(a)) and genuine incitement to secession or armed rebellion (potentially falling under Section 152).
For constitutional challenges: The BNS does not define "subversive activities" or "separatist activities", the expressions used in Section 152. How far those words reach is therefore a matter of construction. Kedar Nath Singh (below) construed Section 124A, not Section 152, so it does not answer that question for the new provision.
For defence counsel: In cases where Section 152 BNS is invoked, the defence may argue that the Kedar Nath Singh construction — which confined Section 124A to words or acts intended, or having a tendency, to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence — should inform the interpretation of Section 152 as well; Kedar Nath Singh itself construed only Section 124A (and Section 505). Mere criticism of the government or expressions of regional identity should not attract prosecution.
Does old case law still apply?
Case law on Section 124A IPC remains relevant to proceedings for conduct before 1 July 2024, which Section 358(2) BNS preserves. None of the judgments below construes Section 152 BNS, whose operative words differ from Section 124A (see Key differences); they are summarised for what they decided about Section 124A.
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar ([1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 769; 1962 INSC 17) — A five-judge bench, in a judgment delivered on 20 January 1962, upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 124A and 505 IPC but construed Section 124A narrowly. Read as a whole with its Explanations, the Court held, the section renders penal only activities intended, or having a tendency, to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence; criticism of public measures or comment on Government action, "however strongly worded", stays within the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. The restrictions the sections impose were held to be in the interest of public order and within the ambit of permissible legislative interference with the right under Article 19(1)(a). Whether that construction carries over to Section 152 BNS is a question the judgment does not answer.
Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab ([1995] 2 S.C.R. 411; 1995 INSC 151) — A two-judge bench, on 1 March 1995, set aside the convictions under Sections 124A and 153A IPC of two government servants who were alleged to have raised slogans, including "Khalistan Zindabad", in a Chandigarh market on 31 October 1984, the day Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated. The Court held that the casual raising of slogans a couple of times by two individuals, which evoked no response or reaction from the public and caused no disturbance of law and order, could not found a charge of sedition — "Some more overt act was required". It also held that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Vinod Dua v. Union of India ([2021] 12 S.C.R. 1071; 2021 INSC 304) — A two-judge bench, on 3 June 2021, quashed an FIR registered against a journalist over statements in a talk show; the FIR invoked Sections 124A, 505, 501 and 268 IPC among other provisions. The Court held that the statements were within the limits laid down in Kedar Nath Singh and were made without any intent to incite people to create public disorder, and clarified (para 67) that every journalist is entitled to protection in terms of Kedar Nath Singh, since every prosecution under Sections 124A and 505 IPC must be in strict conformity with the law laid down there. It rejected the petitioner's further prayer that no FIR be registered against a person belonging to the media with at least ten years' standing unless cleared by a proposed committee (para 68).
Judicial developments post-abolition (post-July 2024)
This guide does not survey post-July 2024 case law under Section 152 BNS.
Frequently asked questions
Has sedition been abolished in India? Yes, for conduct on or after 1 July 2024. Section 124A IPC, which criminalised sedition, stands repealed with the rest of the IPC by Section 358(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, effective 1 July 2024. The words "sedition" and "disaffection" do not appear in the BNS. Under Section 358(2) BNS, the repeal does not affect liabilities, penalties or proceedings for offences committed before that date.
Is Section 152 BNS the same as sedition? No. Section 152 BNS penalises exciting or attempting to excite secession, armed rebellion or subversive activities, encouraging feelings of separatist activities, or endangering the sovereignty or unity and integrity of India. It does not penalise "disaffection" or "contempt" towards the government, which was the essence of sedition under IPC 124A. It does reuse 124A's modes-of-expression wording and carries an Explanation modelled on 124A's Explanations 2 and 3, but the conduct it targets is different.
What happens to pending sedition cases? Pending cases under IPC Section 124A are not ended by the repeal itself. Section 358(2) BNS provides that the repeal of the IPC does not affect any liability or penalty incurred under it, and that proceedings may be instituted or continued "as if that Code had not been repealed"; Section 531(2)(a) BNSS keeps trials, inquiries and investigations pending on 1 July 2024 under the CrPC. Section 152 BNS cannot be applied to conduct before 1 July 2024: Article 20(1) of the Constitution bars conviction except for violation of a law in force at the time of the act.
Can you still be arrested for criticising the government? No provision of the BNS uses the words "sedition" or "disaffection", and the Explanation to Section 152 provides that comments expressing disapprobation of the measures, or administrative or other action of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting the activities the section refers to, do not constitute an offence under that section. However, if speech crosses the line into encouraging secession, armed rebellion, or subversive activities, Section 152 BNS may apply. The constitutional right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a), subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), continues to protect legitimate political expression and dissent.