Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, has emerged as the new focal point in the debate over freedom of speech and national security in India. It replaces the colonial-era IPC Section 124A (“sedition”), which the Supreme Court had effectively suspended in May 2022 pending government review. Statement 1 – Correct. Section 152 penalizes acts—through words, signs, or other means—that “endanger sovereignty, unity, or integrity” or “excite secession, rebellion, subversive activities, or separatist feelings.” A significant criticism is that it can apply even without proof of intent to incite violence, since it uses the “knowingly” standard rather than a higher “intent to incite” threshold. This potentially expands criminal liability to speech that is merely critical or unpopular, even if it poses no imminent threat to public order. Statement 2 – Incorrect. While Section 152 covers much of the same ground as Section 124A, it does not retain the term “sedition.” Instead, it introduces broader and less historically tainted terminology, ostensibly as part of the BNS’s modernization effort. Critics, however, argue that this is “old wine in a new bottle,” with substantially similar punitive scope. Statement 3 – Correct. The constitutional challenge, led by retired Major General S. G. Vombatkere, rests on key grounds: Vagueness: Terms like “subversive activity” and “separatist feelings” are undefined, violating Article 14’s mandate against arbitrariness. Violation of Free Speech: Restrictions under Article 19(1)(a) must pass the Article 19(2) tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality. Overbroad laws risk chilling legitimate dissent. Due Process: Under Article 21, deprivation of liberty must follow clear, fair procedures, which vague criminal provisions undermine.