IPC 124A in the new BNS 2023

If you have been named in an FIR or notice under this section, the section number alone does not decide the outcome — the facts, the evidence and the procedure do. Many cases turn on procedural lapses, bail strategy and the exact ingredients of the offence.

Sedition, as an offence, no longer exists in Indian law. IPC 124A was repealed outright by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and Section 152 was enacted in its place — but it is not the same offence renumbered. It is differently worded, differently framed, and punished considerably more severely. Anyone searching for 'sedition in the BNS' needs to understand that they are looking at a new provision, not a renamed one.

What the section requires

For the offence to be made out, these ingredients have to be established:

• the accused purposely or knowingly used words, spoken or written, or signs, visible representation, electronic communication, financial means, or otherwise
• the act excited or attempted to excite secession, armed rebellion or subversive activities, or encouraged feelings of separatist activities, or endangered the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India
• the conduct goes beyond disapprobation of measures or administrative action expressed with a view to obtaining their lawful alteration

What changed from the IPC

This is the most substantial change in the recodification, and it works in two directions. On wording: IPC 124A punished bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or contempt, or exciting disaffection towards, the Government established by law. BNS 152 does not mention the Government at all. It targets exciting or attempting to excite secession, armed rebellion or subversive activities, encouraging feelings of separatist activities, or endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. It expressly extends to electronic communication and to financial means, neither of which IPC 124A named. It also states a mental element — the act must be done purposely or knowingly — which IPC 124A left to judicial interpretation. On punishment: IPC 124A carried imprisonment for life, or imprisonment which could extend to three years, with a fine. BNS 152 carries imprisonment for life, or imprisonment which may extend to seven years, and a fine. The lower bracket more than doubled.

How this section is distinguished from related offences

The provision has to be read alongside the offences that surround it. Section 196 punishes promoting enmity between groups on grounds of religion, race, language and similar characteristics, carrying three years, or five where committed in a place of worship. Section 197 covers imputations prejudicial to national integration. Section 353 deals with statements conducing to public mischief. Where a case involves criticism of the government that stops well short of exciting secession, armed rebellion or subversive activities, none of these provisions is engaged, and the correct answer is that no offence has been committed at all. That distinction is the whole of the constitutional debate around this section.

How the case proceeds

The offence is cognizable and non-bailable and is tried by a Court of Session. The constitutional history matters to how such a case is defended. In Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar (1962) the Supreme Court upheld IPC 124A but read it down, holding that it reached only acts involving incitement to violence or the intention or tendency to create public disorder — mere criticism of the Government, however strongly worded, was outside it. In S G Vombatkere v Union of India (2022) the Supreme Court directed that IPC 124A be kept in abeyance, with no fresh FIRs registered under it, pending reconsideration. Section 152 is a new provision and has not been through that process, but the constitutional standard the courts applied to sedition — that speech is protected unless it incites violence or public disorder — is the framework within which challenges to it are argued.

Evidence that usually decides these cases

These cases are decided on the content and the context of what was said or published, and context does most of the work. The complete text, speech or post has to be read as a whole, because extracts are frequently misleading and courts have repeatedly said that a passage must be judged in the setting in which it appeared and by the effect it would have on reasonable people rather than on the most sensitive or the most excitable. Where the material is electronic, the record of what was actually posted, by whom and when, together with the certification requirements applicable to electronic evidence, is the technical foundation. Evidence of actual or likely consequences — whether any disorder followed, and whether the audience was in any position to act — bears on whether the section's threshold was crossed at all. The financial means limb requires evidence of transactions and their purpose.

How courts approach sentencing

Imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description which may extend to seven years, together with a fine. The gap between the two is unusually wide, and where a conviction results the question of which end of the range applies turns on the nature of the acts, whether violence followed, and the degree of organisation involved.

Defences that commonly apply

The explanation in the section is the principal statutory defence: disapprobation of government measures or administrative action, expressed with a view to obtaining lawful change, without exciting secession, armed rebellion, subversive or separatist activities. Beyond it, the absence of the mental element — that the act was not done purposely or knowingly in the sense the section requires — is a direct answer. The constitutional argument runs alongside: speech is protected under Article 19(1)(a) subject to the reasonable restrictions in Article 19(2), and the standard the Supreme Court applied in Kedar Nath, requiring incitement to violence or a tendency to create public disorder, is the framework used to argue that particular words fall outside the section. Where the material is electronic, the technical challenges to attribution and certification apply as in any electronic evidence case.

How a case under this section typically progresses

The case begins with an FIR and, where electronic material is involved, seizure and forensic examination of devices, which is generally the longest part of the investigation. A charge sheet follows and the case is committed to a Court of Session. Because the offence is non-bailable and carries a very high maximum, bail is contested early and is frequently pursued to the High Court. Petitions to quash the FIR on the ground that the material does not disclose the ingredients — particularly where it amounts to criticism rather than incitement — are common and are the principal early remedy.

Documents worth gathering early

Preserve the complete material as published — the full text, the full speech, the full post with its thread and replies — rather than the extract relied on in the complaint, since reading the whole is usually the strongest answer available. Where the material is electronic, preserve the original account records, posting logs and device, and note the certification requirements for electronic evidence. Where the words were spoken, any full recording is far more valuable than a transcript of part of it. Assemble the context: the occasion, the audience, what preceded and followed, and any earlier statements showing the position being advanced. Where the financial limb is invoked, the transaction records and the documents establishing the purpose of the payments are central.

Note on bail and cognizability. Whether an offence is cognizable, and whether it is bailable, is set by the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, not by the BNS section itself. Because that classification decides whether police can arrest without a warrant and how bail is approached, check it for your specific section with an advocate rather than relying on a general summary.

If you have been named under this section

The explanation attached to the section is the first thing to read. It provides that comments expressing disapprobation of the measures or administrative action of the Government, with a view to obtaining their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite the activities the section names, do not constitute an offence. That explanation is the statutory expression of the protection that Kedar Nath read into the old section, and it is where most defences begin. The mental element is the other route: the section requires that the act was done purposely or knowingly, so material showing what was actually intended, and the context in which words were used, is central.

Common misunderstandings

"Sedition still exists under BNS 152."
The offence of sedition was repealed. BNS 152 is a different offence with different ingredients — it does not mention the Government, and it targets secession, armed rebellion, subversive and separatist activities.

"The punishment is the same."
It is not. IPC 124A carried life or up to three years. BNS 152 carries life or up to seven years, together with a fine.

"Criticising the government is an offence."
The explanation to the section expressly excludes comments expressing disapprobation of government measures or administrative action, made with a view to lawful change, that do not excite the activities the section names.

"The Supreme Court's abeyance order covers Section 152."
The direction in S G Vombatkere concerned IPC 124A. Section 152 is a new provision enacted afterwards and was not the subject of that order.

Related BNS sections

• BNS 152 — Act endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India
• BNS 196 — Promoting enmity between groups (IPC 153A)
• BNS 197 — Imputations prejudicial to national integration
• BNS 353 — Statements conducing to public mischief (IPC 505)

Which code applies to your case

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 replaced the Indian Penal Code 1860 with effect from 1 July 2024, and the change is not retrospective. The date the offence is alleged to have been committed decides which code governs it. An offence alleged to have occurred on or after 1 July 2024 proceeds under the BNS. An offence alleged to have occurred before that date continues to be investigated, tried, appealed and punished under the IPC, even where the FIR was registered later. Cases from the transition period frequently cite both numbering systems, which is why the old section number remains worth knowing.

Named under this section? Ask the free AI Advocate →

General information for understanding the IPC→BNS change, not legal advice. The BNS restructured many offences — confirm the exact section, sub-section and punishment with a licensed advocate.