The Supreme Court of India has agreed to examine the constitutional validity of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which is seen as the successor to the colonial-era sedition law. A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria issued a notice to the central government regarding a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by retired Major General S G Vombatkere. Major General Vombatkere, an Army veteran and Vishisht Seva Medal awardee, is challenging the validity of Section 152 of the BNS, which deals with acts endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.

The Supreme Court has ordered the plea to be tagged with a pending petition challenging Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which is the sedition law that the BNS replaces. In July 2022, a three-judge bench headed by the then Chief Justice of India N V Ramana had put the sedition provision under the IPC on hold.

The petitioner argues that Section 152 of the BNS is a "rebranded version" of the sedition law that was previously kept in abeyance by the Supreme Court in July 2022, pending legislative review. The plea contends that the new legislation reinstates sedition under a new label, with even broader and more ambiguous language. It claims that the provision threatens democratic discourse and the right to dissent, and therefore should not remain on the statute book. The petitioner also argues that the provision violates Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution. These articles pertain to the right to equality, freedom of speech and expression, and the right to life, respectively.

The plea asserts that Section 152 of the BNS is liable to be struck down because it violates the principles of clarity, necessity, and proportionality under Article 19(2), fails the test of due process under Article 21, and permits arbitrary state action, thus offending Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner contends that Section 152 criminalizes a wide spectrum of expressive conduct, including those who "purposely or knowingly" use words—spoken, written, electronic, symbolic, or financial—to "excite or attempt to excite" secession, rebellion, or subversive activities. It is argued that the sweeping language of the section, including phrases like "encouraging feelings of separatist activities," fails the test of constitutional validity due to vagueness, overbreadth, disproportionate punishment, and absence of proximate nexus to public disorder.

Section 152 of the BNS prescribes life imprisonment or imprisonment of up to seven years, along with a fine, for those found guilty. The petitioner argues that the provision, in effect, reintroduces the colonial sedition law previously codified as Section 124A, under a new name. Although the language has been altered, its substantive content—criminalizing vague and broad categories of speech and expression such as "subversive activity," "encouragement of separatist feelings," and acts "endangering unity or integrity of India"—remains the same or is even more expansive. The Supreme Court has sought a response from the central government within four weeks.