The Dangerous Wiring Together of a ‘Conspiracy’

Context

Recent FIR in Assam (May 2025) against senior journalists (Karan Thapar, Siddharth Varadarajan) alleging conspiracy to undermine national security through interviews and articles.
Raises concerns of misuse of Section 152, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) → offence of “endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India”.
Seen as a rebranded form of sedition law (repealed in 2023).

Key Issues Highlighted

1. Section 152, BNS – Sedition in New Form

Wording mirrors sedition but couched in terms of “unity & integrity”.
Can be invoked even for critical speech, without evidence of rebellion/secession.
Punishment includes life imprisonment → excessive, vague, and prone to misuse.

2. Chilling Effect on Free Speech

Fear among journalists, analysts, panelists → any criticism of govt policy may be labelled “strategic subversion”.
Extends beyond chilling effect → becomes “freezing effect” on press freedom.

3. Process as Punishment

Summons to far-away states → financial & logistical harassment of accused.
Police delay in providing FIR copy (contrary to Youth Bar Association of India v. UOI, 2016).
Accountability of police absent → investigations drag on, repeat summons possible.

4. Alternatives Ignored

Video-conferencing for questioning possible, but not used.
Even courts allow cross-examination of police via video call; but journalists still forced to travel physically.

5. Larger Implications

Weaponisation of law against dissent → undermines Article 19(1)(a).
Signals shrinking democratic space for independent media.
Potential expansion of FIRs → roping in ex-intelligence chiefs, defence analysts, etc.

Constitutional & Legal Dimensions

Article 19(1)(a): guarantees freedom of speech.
Reasonable restrictions (Art. 19(2)): sovereignty & integrity must mean actual threat (armed rebellion, secession, subversive activity). Mere criticism ≠ threat.
Supreme Court precedents:
- Romesh Thappar (1950) → upheld press freedom as essential to democracy.
- Kedar Nath Singh (1962) → sedition applicable only when speech incites violence.
- Youth Bar Association (2016) → FIR copy must be given to accused.

Conclusion

The substitution of sedition with Section 152 of the BNS risks repeating past abuses under a new label. Its vague wording and selective enforcement create a freezing effect on free speech, reducing press freedom to a privilege, not a right. True national security is safeguarded not by silencing dissent but by strengthening accountability, ensuring proportionality in law, and protecting democratic freedoms.