Answer

Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita addresses secession and subversive activities, but the absence of clear guidelines creates legal ambiguities. This undermines its effective implementation while risking overreach into civil liberties. Reports like the Global Rule of Law Index highlight the need for clarity to ensure justice, accountability, and freedom of expression.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Course

Challenges in Applying Section 152 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

• Vagueness of Terminology: The lack of precise definitions for terms like “secession” and “subversive activities” leaves room for subjective interpretation and potential misuse.
  For example: Criticism of historical figures or political ideologies could be labeled as “subversive,” leading to arrests based on enforcement authority bias.
• Low Threshold for Liability: The inclusion of the term “knowingly” allows liability even without malicious intent, especially on social media platforms, where content may unintentionally provoke reactions.
  For instance: Sharing a controversial post without endorsing its sentiment may still lead to arrest if deemed provocative.
• Absence of Causal Linkage Requirement: Section 152 does not mandate proof of actual harm or incitement resulting from speech, enabling preemptive arrests.
  For example: A peaceful protest against a government policy may be deemed an act of incitement to rebellion without any tangible evidence.
• Overreach of Enforcement: Without clear limits, enforcement authorities may use the provision to suppress dissent or criticism, risking a chilling effect on free speech.
  For example: A social media campaign questioning national policies could attract punitive action under vague allegations of endangering national integrity.
• Historical Evidence of Abuse: Similar provisions like IPC Section 124A have shown high rates of arrests with negligible convictions, highlighting the potential for misuse of vague penal laws.

Measures to Streamline Section 152 without Compromising Civil Liberties

• Establish Clear Definitions: Introducing detailed explanations for key terms like “secession,” “subversive activities,” and “endangering national unity” to avoid subjective interpretation.
  For example: “Secession” could be defined explicitly as advocating the creation of a separate sovereign state through non-democratic means.
• Mandate Causal Linkage Proof: Ensuring enforcement authorities establish a direct nexus between the act and its actual impact before initiating prosecution.
  For example: A slogan must demonstrably incite rebellion or disrupt public order to qualify as endangering sovereignty.
• Develop Judicial Guidelines: The Supreme Court could craft specific guidelines to restrict misuse, as seen in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal for arrests.
  For example: Judicial instructions could clarify the evidentiary standard for actions considered subversive.
• Introduce Safeguards for Expression: Include provisions explicitly exempting strong political critique and artistic expression from Section 152’s ambit.
• Strengthen Accountability Mechanisms: Set up independent review panels to oversee Section 152’s implementation and address grievances of misuse.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books From PW Store

Streamlining Section 152 requires precise definitions for secession and subversive activities, aligned with international standards like the UN Human Rights Charter. Incorporating judicial oversight, stakeholder consultation, and public awareness can enhance its application while safeguarding civil liberties, promoting both national security and individual freedoms in a democratic framework.

DOWNLOAD PDF