Abstract

Freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India, forming an essential pillar of democratic governance in India. At the same time, the Constitution permits reasonable restrictions on this freedom under Constitution of India in the interests of sovereignty, security of the State, and public order. This study examines the impact of the newly introduced criminal law framework—comprising the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam—on the regulation of speech and political dissent in India. The research particularly focuses on the replacement of the colonial-era sedition provision with the offence relating to acts endangering the sovereignty and integrity of India under Section 152 of the BNS. While the removal of the term “sedition” is presented as part of a decolonisation effort, the study analyses whether the new provision significantly alters the scope of speech regulation or largely continues earlier legal approaches in a different form. The research also evaluates the procedural and evidentiary changes introduced through the BNSS and BSA, especially the recognition of electronic records as primary evidence and the increased reliance on digital communication as proof in speech-related offences. Further, the study considers constitutional doctrines such as vagueness, proportionality, and the chilling effect to assess whether the new framework adequately protects democratic freedoms. The findings suggest that although the reforms modernise aspects of criminal law, concerns remain regarding broad terminology, potential misuse, and the impact of digital evidence on free expression. Ultimately, the protection of freedom of speech will depend on careful judicial interpretation, responsible enforcement, and continued adherence to constitutional values.

Keywords