Question
Under Section 152 of the BNS, 2023, T delivers a public
speech at a rally advocating for a separate state carved out from an existing state, arguing that the current administrative structure is inefficient for the region's development. T explicitly states: "We should pursue this through constitutional amendments and democratic processes, petitioning the Government and Parliament for reorganization." T distributes pamphlets outlining economic, administrative, and cultural reasons for this proposal. However, he never advocates for violence, armed rebellion, or extra-constitutional means. The state authorities charge T under Section 152 for endangering national integrity. Which of the following correctly applies Section 152 to this scenario?Solution
Explanation: Section 152 of the BNS, 2023 provides: "Whoever, purposely or knowingly, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or by electronic communication or by use of financial mean, or otherwise, excites or attempts to excite, secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities, or encourages feelings of separatist activities or endangers sovereignty or unity and integrity of India; or indulges in or commits any such act shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine." However, the Explanation provides a critical safeguard: "Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures, or administrative or other action of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means without exciting or attempting to excite the activities referred to in this section [are not an offence]." T's speech falls squarely within this protected category. His advocacy was for constitutional reorganization, not secession or armed rebellion. His explicit commitment to democratic and lawful processes distinguishes his speech from the criminal conduct Section 152 targets. The provision criminalizes acts that excite or attempt to excite rebellion or subversive activities, not mere proposals for administrative reorganization. The distinction is between advocating change within constitutional frameworks versus inciting unconstitutional upheaval. Thus, option (B) correctly applies the Explanation to protect T's legitimate political expression.
Walk on eggshell
- Choose the option which best expresses the meaning of the idiom/phrase in bold in the sentence.
The CEO read the riot act to the employees after th... An idiom/phrase is given in bold. Following this idiom/phrase are given three sentences, which use the given idiom/phrase. The idiom/phrase may or may ...
Both during and after the trial, she felt so black and blue .
The new law is just a red herring meant to draw our attention away from the issues regarding education.
In each of the following questions, an idiomatic expression/proverb has been italicised– followed by four alternatives. Choose the one which best exp...
- Identify the words that are similar in meaning to the phrase in bold. If none of the options conveys the correct meaning, mark (5) as your answer. The opti...
Fill in the blank given below using the correct idiom.
The actor's sudden outburst during the interview was _______________ and left the audie...
In each question, three meanings numbered I, II and III are given for the Idiom / Phrase bold in the sentence. Out of the given three meanings, only on...
- In each of the following questions, an idiomatic expression/proverb has been given in bold– followed by four alternatives. Choose the one which best expr...