UPSC Law Optional 2026 PYQ: Paper II Q1(e) – From Sedition to BNS Section 152

This UPSC Law Optional PYQ 2026 asks about one of the most debated changes in the new criminal laws: the move from sedition to BNS Section 152.

UPSC CSE Mains 2026 · Law Optional Paper II · Section A · Q1(e) · 10 marks

"From 'sedition' under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to 'acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India' under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, how has the law changed? Explain."

Source: exam held 30 August 2026. Full 2026 Paper I & II

What this question tests

This is a compare-and-explain question. The examiner wants to see whether you know both provisions, Section 124A IPC and Section 152 BNS, and can explain clearly what changed: the protected interest, the key words and the punishment. You also need to show whether the change is in substance or mostly in name. A short reference to how courts read sedition earlier adds depth.

Syllabus unit

Paper II, Section A: Law of Crimes, offences against the State, read with the new criminal laws (BNS, 2023). The 2026 paper had three BNS-based parts worth 45 marks, so this area now needs IPC and BNS side by side.

How to approach it (about 150 words)

1. Intro: one line on sedition under Section 124A IPC and its replacement in the BNS.

2. Old law: the ingredients of 124A, and the judicial reading in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) and the 2022 order in S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India.

3. New law: the ingredients of Section 152 BNS. Compare the target, the words used and the punishment in a short table.

4. Assessment: what is genuinely new and what concerns remain.

5. Conclusion: a balanced one-liner.

Common mistakes

• Saying sedition was simply "abolished" without explaining Section 152.

• No comparison table, so the change is not clear in 150 words.

• Missing the judicial background.

Practice it now

Write your answer in 20 minutes and share it in the comments. Our model answer is below.

Practise more: Answer-Writing Practice · Test Series · Law Optional Courses · Store. Questions: Call/WhatsApp 6382125862.

Related reading on Lawxpertsmv

• Sedition and Section 152 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (model answer): our earlier answer comparing Section 124A IPC with Section 152 BNS.

• Voicing dissent against government is not sedition: Supreme Court: the judicial reading of Section 124A.

Model answer

UPSC Law Optional Paper 2 | Question 1(e) | 10 Marks.

Answer: From Sedition under Section 124A IPC to Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

1. Introduction: Section 124A, inserted in the Indian Penal Code in 1870, protected the colonial Government from political dissent. Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) drops the word "sedition" and punishes acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. The protected interest has thus moved from the Government established by law to the nation itself. The change is real in form, but the width of the new provision raises the question whether sedition survives in substance.

2. Sedition under Section 124A IPC

The offence lay in bringing, or attempting to bring, the Government established by law in India into hatred or contempt, or exciting or attempting to excite disaffection towards it, by words, signs, visible representation or otherwise. Explanation 1 stated that disaffection includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity. Explanations 2 and 3 excluded comments disapproving of the measures, or the administrative or other action, of the Government, so long as they did not excite hatred, contempt or disaffection. The punishment was imprisonment for life with fine, or imprisonment up to three years with fine, or fine alone, with nothing between three years and life.

3. Judicial Reading Down of Section 124A

In Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955, a Constitution Bench was asked whether Section 124A was consistent with Article 19(1)(a). The Court upheld it, but only by confining it to words that incite violence or have a tendency to create public disorder. Criticism of the Government, however strong, stayed protected, because only this narrower reading kept the provision within "public order" in Article 19(2).

In Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995) 3 SCC 214, the accused had raised pro-Khalistan slogans a couple of times in a public place on the day of Mrs. Indira Gandhi's assassination. The Court acquitted them. The slogans drew no response and caused no disorder, so casual slogans by two individuals did not amount to exciting hatred or disaffection against the Government.

In Vinod Dua v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 154 of 2020, decided on 3 June 2021, a journalist faced an FIR under Sections 124A, 268, 501 and 505 IPC for a talk show criticising the handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Court quashed the FIR, since his statements disapproved of governmental action without inciting violence, and held that every journalist is entitled to protection in terms of Kedar Nath Singh.

In S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, by order dated 11 May 2022, after the Union stated that it was re-examining Section 124A, the Court expected the Central and State Governments not to register any FIR, continue any investigation or take coercive measures under Section 124A while the provision was under consideration. Pending trials, appeals and proceedings on a Section 124A charge were kept in abeyance.

4. The Law Commission and the Legislative Change

The Law Commission, in its 279th Report, Usage of the Law of Sedition (April 2023), advised against repeal. It recommended retaining the offence with amendments: writing the Kedar Nath test into the text, a preliminary inquiry by an Inspector-rank officer and Government permission before an FIR, and a revised punishment in line with Chapter VI.

Parliament went further. Section 152 BNS punishes anyone who, purposely or knowingly, by words spoken or written, signs, visible representation, electronic communication, use of financial means or otherwise, excites or attempts to excite secession, armed rebellion or subversive activities, encourages feelings of separatist activities, or endangers the sovereignty or unity and integrity of India, or who indulges in or commits any such act. The changes are these: (a) The offence is against the nation, not the Government; "hatred", "contempt" and "disaffection" are gone. (b) A mental element, purposely or knowingly, is expressly required. (c) The means are widened to include electronic communication and financial means, and the actus reus covers committing the act itself. (d) A single Explanation protects comments disapproving of the measures or the administrative or other action of the Government made with a view to their alteration by lawful means, without exciting the activities named in the section. (e) The punishment is imprisonment for life, or imprisonment up to seven years, and the offender shall also be liable to fine.

The BNS came into force on 1 July 2024 by notification S.O. 850(E) dated 23 February 2024. Section 358 BNS repeals the IPC while saving what was done under it; as the later law, Section 152 governs conduct from that date; earlier conduct remains under Section 124A, subject to the 2022 abeyance order.

5. Recent Developments (2025)

The vires of Section 152 are now before the Supreme Court. Notice was issued on 8 August 2025 in S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 720 of 2025. On 12 August 2025, in Foundation for Independent Journalism v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 316 of 2025, the Court issued notice, tagged it with that petition and directed no coercive action against the petitioners in an Assam FIR under Section 152, while recording that they may join the investigation as and when required.

6. Critical Evaluation: A New Name for an Old Offence?

Disaffection towards the Government is no longer a crime, and the requirement of purpose or knowledge is a safeguard Section 124A lacked. Yet terms such as "endangers", "subversive activities" and "encourages feelings of separatist activities" are left undefined. The text does not require incitement to violence, and the higher term, together with liability to fine in every case, makes it harsher.

Article 19(2) allows reasonable restrictions in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, so the object of Section 152 is constitutionally valid. Its validity will turn on whether the Court reads in a Kedar Nath proximity to violence or disorder. Without that gloss, the vague heads may reach dissent of the kind Vinod Dua protected, and sedition would survive in substance under another name.

7. Conclusion: The Law Commission's procedural safeguards, a preliminary inquiry and prior sanction before registration of an FIR, should be adopted for Section 152. The vague heads should be defined, or read down to speech tending to violence or public disorder. The pending challenge lets the Supreme Court carry the Kedar Nath test into the new law.

FAQ

Which paper and question is this? UPSC CSE Mains 2026, Law Optional Paper II, Section A, Question 1(e), 10 marks.

Which syllabus unit does it belong to? Law of Crimes: offences against the State under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

How long should the answer be? About 150 words, standard for a 10-mark question.

Where can I find the full 2026 Law Optional papers? On UPSC's previous question papers page and in our post