Offences Against the State under BNS: Chapter VII Sections 147 to 158 and Landmark Cases

Chapter VII of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, addresses offences against the state. Twelve provisions across Sections 147 to 158 codify the criminal law protecting the state's sovereignty, security, and integrity. The chapter opens with the most serious of these offences, waging war against the Government of India (Section 147), and closes with provisions on prisoners of war. Most significantly, the BNS has replaced the classical sedition offence (Section 124A IPC) with a new offence of endangering sovereignty, unity, and integrity (Section 152). This change responds to the long-running constitutional and political debate about the scope of sedition law, and it introduces a modernised framework focused on specific harms to national integrity rather than the older concept of disaffection towards the government. This module walks through each section, the significance of the sedition replacement, the constitutional framework, and the leading cases from Kedar Nath Singh through Balwant Singh to the modern applications.

1. Introduction

The state's specific interest in these offences

Offences against the state are among the most serious in any criminal code. They threaten not only individual victims but the political and constitutional order itself. The state's response is correspondingly severe: the death penalty is available for the gravest offences (waging war), life imprisonment is common, and procedural provisions are typically enhanced. The BNS retains this severity while modernising the specific provisions.

Chapter VII overviewed

The sedition replacement

The most significant change from the IPC to the BNS in this chapter is the replacement of Section 124A IPC (sedition) with Section 152 BNS (endangering sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India). The classical sedition offence, dating from the colonial period, had been criticised for decades as vague, overbroad, and inconsistent with modern democratic norms. Section 152 attempts a modernised formulation focused on specific harms to national integrity rather than the older concept of disaffection towards the government. This is treated in detail under Section 152 below.

2. Section 147 BNS: Waging War Against Government of India

Text of Section 147

What constitutes waging war

Waging war against the Government of India is more than ordinary rebellion or armed resistance. The classical elements:

• Levying of war against the state, involving armed insurrection or systematic organised violence.
• Aimed at overthrowing the government or compelling it to take or refrain from specific actions.
• Involving the use or threatened use of substantial armed force.

The offence has been interpreted to cover major terrorist attacks aimed at the state (as in the 2001 Parliament attack, the 1993 Bombay bombings), armed insurgency, and organised violent secession attempts.

Punishment: death or life imprisonment

The punishment is drastic: death or imprisonment for life, and fine. The Bachan Singh rarest of rare doctrine governs the death penalty. Attempts to wage war and abetment of waging war are punished on the same footing as the substantive offence, reflecting the state's interest in preventing rather than merely responding to threats to its existence.

3. Section 148 BNS: Conspiracy to Wage War

Section 148 covers conspiracy to wage war. Two features:

• The conspiracy may be within or outside India. This extends the section's reach to conspiracies formed abroad but aimed at India.
• No overt act is required. Section 148 departs from the general conspiracy framework (Section 61 BNS) which requires an act in pursuance. Section 148 makes the conspiracy itself an offence, without any overt act.

4. Section 149 BNS: Collecting Arms with Intent

Section 149 addresses the preparatory stage of waging war. Collecting arms, ammunition, or persons with the intention of waging war is itself an offence. This is a significant departure from the general framework (Section 62 BNS on attempt) which typically punishes preparation only in specific offences. The state's interest in intercepting threats before they mature into actual war justifies the criminalisation of preparation.

5. Section 150 BNS: Concealing Design to Wage War

Section 150 punishes the concealment of a design to wage war. Two ingredients:

• Knowledge of a design to wage war.
• Concealment with the intention or knowledge of facilitating the waging of war.

The section reaches persons who know of a planned insurgency, terrorist attack, or armed uprising and choose to conceal it. Punishment: up to ten years and fine.

6. Section 151 BNS: Assault on President or Governor

Section 151 addresses assault or intimidation of the President or Governor. The specific evil is the attempt to compel the head of state or head of a state government to exercise (or refrain from exercising) lawful powers through physical intimidation. The punishment is up to seven years and fine.

7. Section 152 BNS: Endangering Sovereignty, Unity and Integrity

Text of Section 152

The four elements

• Purposely or knowingly.
• By any means: words (spoken or written), signs, visible representation, electronic communication, or financial means, or otherwise.
• Excites or attempts to excite: secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities, feelings of separatism, or endangers sovereignty or unity and integrity of India.
• Or indulges in or commits any such act.

Replacement of Section 124A IPC (sedition)

Section 152 BNS replaces the classical sedition offence in Section 124A IPC. Comparing the two:

The Kedar Nath Singh test

The Kedar Nath Singh reading was significant. It confined sedition to conduct that actually threatened public order, not merely opinions critical of the government. Where the government prosecuted persons for peaceful criticism, the Kedar Nath Singh reading rendered the prosecutions unsustainable.

The Kedar Nath Singh reading will guide the application of Section 152. The section's explicit reference to 'secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities' echoes the Kedar Nath Singh formulation. The Explanation preserving disapprobation for lawful alteration is retained. The section thus imports the Kedar Nath Singh limitations into its own text.

8. Section 153 BNS: Waging War Against Friendly Country

Section 153 addresses waging war against a friendly foreign country. India's international obligations require that it not permit the use of its territory for hostile actions against countries with which it is at peace. Section 153 gives effect to this obligation. Punishment: life imprisonment and fine, or up to seven years and fine, or fine.

9. Sections 154 and 155: Depredation and Receiving Property

Sections 154 and 155 address depredation (looting, robbery, or pillage) on the territory of allied or friendly countries, and the receipt of property so taken. Both carry punishments up to seven years, fine, and forfeiture of the property.

10. Sections 156 to 158: Prisoners of War

Sections 156 to 158 address prisoners of war and state prisoners:

• Section 156: public servant voluntarily allowing prisoner to escape. Life imprisonment or up to ten years and fine.
• Section 157: public servant negligently suffering prisoner to escape. Up to three years and fine.
• Section 158: knowingly aiding, rescuing, or harbouring an escaped state prisoner or prisoner of war. Life imprisonment or up to ten years and fine.

11. Constitutional Framework

Article 19(1)(a) freedom of speech

Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression. The offences in Chapter VII, particularly Section 152, engage this freedom directly. The constitutional question is whether the offence's restrictions on speech satisfy the reasonable restriction test under Article 19(2).

Reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2)

Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions on Article 19(1)(a) in the interests of, among other things:

• Sovereignty and integrity of India.
• Security of the state.
• Public order.

These grounds directly correspond to the concerns underlying Chapter VII. Waging war, endangering sovereignty and integrity, and similar offences fall clearly within the permitted restrictions. The constitutional analysis then focuses on whether specific applications of the offences are reasonable, and whether the definitions are sufficiently precise to avoid arbitrariness.

The security of the state ground

The security of the state ground under Article 19(2) has been the primary constitutional basis for sedition and similar offences. Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar upheld Section 124A IPC on this basis. The same rationale supports Section 152 BNS, subject to the same limiting principle: only conduct with tendency to public disorder or violence is covered, not mere criticism of the government.

12. Judicial Elaboration and Landmark Cases

13. The Sedition Debate and Section 152

Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962)

Discussed above. The foundational Indian judgment upholding sedition while confining it to conduct with tendency to public disorder or violence.

The historical role of Section 124A IPC

Section 124A IPC was inserted by the colonial government in 1870 to suppress nationalist activities. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi, and other independence leaders were prosecuted under it. Kedar Nath Singh's reading of the section was intended to preserve its function against genuine threats to public order while preventing its use against ordinary political dissent.

The SG Vombatkere case (2022)

In SG Vombatkere v Union of India, (2022) 7 SCC 433, the Supreme Court placed sedition prosecutions on hold pending statutory reform. The Court's approach implicitly acknowledged that the classical Section 124A formulation had become outdated, and that new legislation was needed. The BNS Section 152 formulation is that legislation.

Section 152 as reformed framework

14. Consolidated Landmark Judgments

• Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955. Foundational sedition case. Public disorder tendency required.
• SG Vombatkere v. Union of India, (2022) 7 SCC 433. Sedition prosecutions on hold pending reform.
• Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995) 3 SCC 214. Mere slogans are not sedition.
• Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 7 SCC 431. Specific mens rea required.
• State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600. Parliament attack. Waging war framework.
• Nazir Khan v. State of Delhi, (2003) 8 SCC 461. Conspiracy to wage war completed upon agreement.
• Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI Bombay, (1994) 5 SCC 410. Bombay bombings. Terrorism as waging war.
• Common Cause v. Union of India, (2016) 15 SCC 269. Procedural safeguards against misuse.
• Vinod Dua v. Union of India, (2021) 3 SCC 465. Journalistic criticism protected.
• Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124. Foundational freedom of press.
• Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, AIR 1950 SC 129. Reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).
• Sakal Papers v. Union of India, (1962) 3 SCR 842. Freedom of press.
• Bennett Coleman v. Union of India, (1972) 2 SCC 788. Freedom of press and reasonable restrictions.
• Union of India v. Naveen Jindal, (2004) 2 SCC 510. Fundamental rights in context of national symbols.
• Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637. Modern application of freedom of speech restrictions.
• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1. Digital speech restrictions and constitutional validity.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Chapter VII of the BNS?

Chapter VII of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, contains twelve provisions on offences against the state (Sections 147 to 158). Section 147 punishes waging war against the Government of India. Section 148 addresses conspiracy to wage war. Sections 149 and 150 punish preparation and concealment. Section 151 addresses assault on the President or Governor. Section 152 replaces the classical sedition offence with a modernised framework focused on sovereignty, unity, and integrity. Sections 153 to 158 address waging war against friendly countries, depredation, receiving property, and offences relating to prisoners of war.

What is Section 152 BNS?

Section 152 BNS replaces the classical sedition offence (Section 124A IPC). It punishes any person who, purposely or knowingly, by any means (words, signs, visible representation, electronic communication, financial means, or otherwise), excites or attempts to excite secession, armed rebellion, or subversive activities, encourages feelings of separatism, or endangers sovereignty or unity and integrity of India. Punishment: life imprisonment or up to seven years, and fine. The Explanation preserves the Kedar Nath Singh principle: comments seeking alteration by lawful means are not an offence.

How does Section 152 BNS differ from Section 124A IPC?

Two key differences: (i) Focus shifted from 'disaffection towards government' (subjective and broad) to 'sovereignty, unity, integrity' (objective and specific), with enumerated harms like secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities, and separatism. Ordinary political dissent is not captured. (ii) Punishment range increased from three years to seven years, reflecting the specifically serious character of the enumerated harms. The Explanation preserving lawful criticism is retained, and the Kedar Nath Singh limiting principle continues to apply.

What did Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar (1962) decide?

A five judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 124A IPC but read it down. The Court held that Section 124A applies only to conduct that has a tendency or intention to create public disorder or to disturb public tranquillity by use of violence. Mere criticism of the government, however strong, does not attract Section 124A. The Kedar Nath Singh reading confined sedition to genuine threats to public order and protected legitimate political dissent. The reading will guide the application of Section 152 BNS.

What is Section 147 BNS?

Section 147 BNS (formerly Section 121 IPC) punishes waging war against the Government of India. Punishment: death, or imprisonment for life, and fine. Attempts to wage war and abetment of waging war are punished on the same footing as the substantive offence. Waging war has been interpreted to cover major terrorist attacks aimed at the state (as in State (NCT of Delhi) v Navjot Sandhu on the Parliament attack), armed insurgency, and organised violent secession attempts. The Bachan Singh rarest of rare doctrine governs the death penalty.

What was the SG Vombatkere case (2022)?

In SG Vombatkere v Union of India, (2022) 7 SCC 433, the Supreme Court considered the continuing constitutional validity of Section 124A IPC in the modern era. The Court effectively placed the sedition offence on hold pending reconsideration by the government. Directions were issued that pending sedition cases should not proceed, and new sedition cases should not be registered, pending the government's review. The Vombatkere case effectively bridged the transition to the BNS Section 152 formulation, which was subsequently enacted. It illustrates the judicial-legislative dialogue on the sedition question.

Related Topics on The Legal Bridge

For a fuller picture, read these companion notes on adjacent doctrines and provisions:

• Terrorist Act under Section 113 BNS: the modern terrorism offence that operates alongside the Chapter VII framework.
• Organised Crime under Section 111 BNS: the anti-organised-crime provision that may apply to terrorist and insurgent networks.
• Constitutional Rights: Article 19 freedom of speech and its reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).
• Rights of the Accused: constitutional and procedural safeguards that apply to Chapter VII prosecutions.