12.4. To sum up, laws restricting speech must be narrowly tailored. There must be a direct and imminent connection between the speech and the likelihood of rebellion or secession to invoke such provisions. Legitimate dissent or criticism cannot be equated with sedition or antinational acts. For instance, in cases involving Section 124A (sedition) of the repealed IPC, casual or rhetorical statements did not amount to sedition, unless, of course, they incite violence or public disorder. To my mind, a similar approach would apply to Section 152. Its broad phrasing necessitates careful application to prevent misuse or overreach. The provision must be interpreted in conjunction with the constitutional rights to free speech and expression to ensure it does not infringe on democratic freedoms. One must stay mindful that the provision is used as a shield for national security and not a sword against legitimate dissent.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5005/2024
Tejender Pal Singh @ Timma Vs State Of Rajasthan,
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Pronounced on : 16/12/2024.
