Context

• Echoing Shakespeare’s words — “O horror, horror, horror! Tongue nor heart cannot conceive nor name thee!” — India finds itself in a moment where the constitutional promise of press freedom stands perilously exposed. What initially appears as a local police action — the summoning of two senior journalists by Assam Police — is symptomatic of a broader and more troubling erosion of democratic dissent.
• At the center of this unfolding episode is Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) — a provision many argue is sedition cloaked in new terminology. Though sedition has been formally struck off Indian penal law, its spirit may have quietly re-entered through a more elastic and dangerous legal instrument.

The FIR and Its Context

• The case stems from a First Information Report filed in Guwahati in May 2025, targeting journalists Karan Thapar and Siddharth Varadarajan for allegedly conspiring to endanger national security through interviews and articles published on The Wire. The complaint, couched in refined legal language, attempts to stretch journalistic critique into a narrative of subversion.
• Despite this, the FIR fails to meet the threshold of an offence under the BNS. Yet, nearly three months after its filing, the Assam Police acted — summoning the journalists to Guwahati for questioning. This delay, combined with the flimsy legal basis, suggests a motive far removed from concerns of national security. What it reveals instead is an institutional determination to intimidate critics and suppress dissent.

Section 152: Sedition in Disguise

·       Although the colonial-era offence of sedition has been formally abolished, Section 152 of the BNS effectively reincarnates its spirit. The clause criminalises acts that threaten the “sovereignty, unity, and integrity” of India — language that is constitutionally valid when applied narrowly to secessionist or violent acts.

·       However, the breadth and vagueness of this provision make it ripe for misuse. In its current form, it can be invoked not only against those inciting rebellion but also against journalists, writers, or critics who merely question government policy. The penalty — life imprisonment — casts a chilling shadow over public discourse. With such a tool in hand, overzealous authorities can easily blur the line between dissent and criminality, turning legitimate scrutiny into punishable offence.

The Chilling Impact of the Summons

The effects of these actions are immediate and corrosive:

• Stifling Public Debate: The fear of being summoned, interrogated, or criminally charged discourages not just journalists but all citizens from engaging in critique.
• Financial and Emotional Toll: Defending oneself against vague accusations demands travel, legal fees, and time — resources many cannot afford. For Thapar and Varadarajan, recurring trips to Guwahati without clarity on the scope or duration of questioning only intensify the burden.
• Due Process Denied: In a direct affront to established Supreme Court rulings, the police have denied the journalists access to the FIR — a basic legal right essential for mounting a defence. This refusal is not a procedural lapse but an act of institutional impunity, undermining both legal accountability and public trust in the justice system.

In this scenario, the process becomes the punishment. Even in the absence of a conviction, the mere machinery of the law is wielded as a weapon of harassment.

A Broader and More Dangerous Precedent

• The implications stretch well beyond this particular case. Section 152 allows the state to expand the circle of suspicion — potentially ensnaring editors, analysts, retired officials, or any intellectual associated with critical narratives.
• Thus, the real casualty here is not just individual freedom but the collective space for open, democratic debate. The threat posed by such loosely framed laws is not episodic but systemic. It erodes the very foundation of a republic premised on argument and accountability.

Harassment Is Not Inevitable — There Are Alternatives

There are clear and practical alternatives to the harassment currently being inflicted:

• Video-based Interrogation: Technology enables questioning via video conferencing, a practice already recognised in Delhi’s policing system. This would reduce travel-related costs and create a transparent, auditable process.
• Respecting Legal Mandates: Simply following Supreme Court guidelines — such as providing the FIR to the accused — would be a step toward restoring legal credibility.

The refusal to adopt such measures exposes the true intention: not to investigate, but to intimidate.

Three Fundamental Questions for Democracy

This episode forces India to confront three uncomfortable yet urgent questions:

1. Can Section 152 remain on the books when its potential for abuse so clearly undermines free speech?
2. Should the police not be held to legal mandates, especially when courts have made their rulings on due process unequivocal?
3. Is the state accountable when its institutions weaponise the law not to uphold justice, but to punish citizens for their speech?

If the answer to any of these is yes, then what we are witnessing is not law enforcement but democratic backsliding.

Conclusion

India today stands at a crossroads — caught between the aspiration for a vibrant democracy and the reality of shrinking dissent. The rebranded offence of sedition in Section 152 is more than a legal issue; it is a moral and constitutional crisis. What plays out in the summoning of journalists is not an isolated case, but a cautionary tale of how democracies decay not with thunder, but with silence. If unchecked by the judiciary, reformed by Parliament, and restrained by policing institutions, this provision will freeze free speech into a national hush. And a democracy without dissent, history reminds us, is no democracy at all.