Content

1. The dangerous wiring together of a ‘conspiracy’
2. India–Japan ties — Old Partners, New Priorities

The dangerous wiring together of a ‘conspiracy’

Context of the Case

• Trigger: FIR filed (May 9, 2025, Guwahati) against journalists Karan Thapar and Siddharth Varadarajan for allegedly undermining national security through interviews/articles published in The Wire.
• Legal Provision Invoked: Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which criminalises acts endangering the “sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.”
• Judicial Intervention: Supreme Court ordered no coercive action (August 2025) but investigation continues.
• Significance: Seen as a re-emergence of sedition in a new form despite its formal repeal.

Relevance : GS 2(Judiciary , Fundamental Rights)

Practice Question : The repeal of sedition law was hailed as a progressive step, yet Section 152 of the BNS risks reintroducing it in another form. Discuss with reference to constitutional morality, rule of law, and democratic accountability.(250 Words)

Legal and Constitutional Framework

• Freedom of Press:
  • Rooted in Article 19(1)(a) – freedom of speech & expression.
  • Recognised explicitly in Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950, SC Constitution Bench).
• Restrictions: Article 19(2) – reasonable restrictions on grounds like sovereignty, integrity, public order, security of the State.
• Sedition Law History:
  • IPC Section 124A (colonial sedition law) struck down in 2022–23 review process; not included in BNS.
  • Section 152 BNS introduced instead – broader wording, covering “subversive activities” & “encouraging separatist feelings.”
• Judicial Standards:
  • In Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962), SC held only speech inciting violence or armed rebellion qualifies as sedition.
  • By analogy, mere dissent or criticism should not fall under Section 152 BNS.

Key Issues Raised by Justice Lokur

(a) Nature of Section 152 – “Sedition in Sheep’s Clothing”

• Though sedition is gone, Section 152 has similar scope with vaguer language.
• Punishment includes life imprisonment → high potential for misuse.
• “Endangering sovereignty/integrity” can be misinterpreted to target dissent, unlike earlier sedition’s defined threshold.

(b) Chilling / Freezing Effect on Free Speech

• Journalists may self-censor to avoid FIRs.
• Even TV panelists or critics risk charges if their speech is misinterpreted as undermining sovereignty.
• National security becomes a catch-all excuse to silence criticism.

(c) Process as Punishment

• Summons in distant states (e.g., Guwahati) impose:
  • Financial costs (travel, lawyers, stay).
  • Time burden with repeated hearings.
  • Harassment without accountability of police officers.
• Alternative like video-conferencing questioning exists, but not adopted.

(d) Police Arbitrariness & Impunity

• Violation of SC’s Youth Bar Association of India (2016) ruling → accused must get FIR copy.
• Journalists tried to obtain FIR but were denied; Magistrate too had no copy.
• Raises questions of rule of law, state accountability, and judicial oversight.

Wider Implications

• For Democracy & Press Freedom:
  • Creates a “freezing effect” worse than the chilling effect of sedition.
  • Undermines watchdog role of media, core to constitutional democracy.
• For Federalism & Policing:
  • Journalists in Delhi summoned to Assam → raises forum shopping concerns.
  • State police can harass individuals across India without safeguards.
• For Rule of Law & Accountability:
  • Police act without following SC-mandated safeguards.
  • Lack of accountability jurisprudence → innocents spend years in jail (as in Mumbai wrongful incarceration example).
• For Separation of Powers:
  • Judiciary’s cautious interim relief (no coercive action) helps, but systemic misuse continues until a Constitution Bench reviews Section 152.

Comparative Perspective

• UK & USA: Sedition laws repealed decades ago; only actual incitement to violence punishable.
• India: Repeal of sedition hailed as progressive, but Section 152 risks becoming “new sedition” with broader misuse potential.

Challenges Identified

• Vague and broad wording of Section 152 → scope for arbitrary application.
• Over-criminalisation of dissent under the garb of national security.
• Lack of police accountability → harassment via summons.
• Inaccessibility of justice → high litigation costs discourage ordinary citizens.

Way Forward (Justice Lokur’s Implied Suggestions)

• Legal Review: Constitution Bench must test constitutionality of Section 152.
• Safeguards: Clear guidelines limiting application to actual secessionist/violent acts.
• Procedural Reform:
  • Ensure FIR copies provided immediately.
  • Mandate video-conferencing for questioning.
• Accountability: State should bear costs of summoning accused across states.
• Democratic Culture: Protect critical journalism as part of democratic checks & balances.

Disclaimer : The views and opinions expressed here are based on the original article published in THE HINDU and do not reflect the official stance of Legacy IAS Academy. This content is provided solely for Academic purposes.

India–Japan ties — Old Partners, New Priorities

Historical Background of India–Japan Relations

• Cultural ties: Buddhism was the earliest link (6th century onwards).
• Diplomatic relations: Established in 1952 after the San Francisco Peace Treaty.
• Japan’s role post-1991 reforms: Became one of the first major investors when India liberalised its economy.
• 2000s onwards:
  • 2000 – “Global Partnership” announced.
  • 2006 – Elevated to “Strategic and Global Partnership”.
  • 2008 – “Joint Declaration on Security Cooperation” (only 2nd country after Australia).
  • 2014 – Modi & Abe elevated ties to “Special Strategic and Global Partnership”.
• Common outlook: Both democracies, maritime nations, wary of China’s rise.

Relevance : GS 2(International Relations)

Practice Question : Evaluate the significance of Japan’s long-term investment and strategic commitments to India in shaping the Indo-Pacific order. How does this balance India’s relations with China and the United States?(250 Words)

Current Economic Engagement

• Japan’s Investment Pledge (2025):
  • ¥10 trillion (~$68 billion) over 10 years → One of the largest Japanese overseas commitments.
  • Focus: Infrastructure, clean energy, manufacturing, semiconductors, and digital technologies.
• Ongoing Projects:
  • Mumbai–Ahmedabad Bullet Train: Shinkansen E10 technology; Japan funding ~80% via soft loans.
  • Delhi–Mumbai Industrial Corridor (DMIC) and other industrial zones.
• Trade:
  • Bilateral trade 2023–24: ~$22 billion (India exports $6.4B; imports $15.6B).
  • Japan = India’s 5th largest source of FDI (~$38B cumulative till 2024).
• Technology: Expanding cooperation in AI, startups, green hydrogen, and digital innovation.

Security & Strategic Cooperation

• Defence Cooperation:
  • 2008 security pact being updated to address new realities.
  • Regular 2+2 dialogues (Defence + Foreign Ministers).
  • Joint exercises: JIMEX (naval), Dharma Guardian (army), and participation in Malabar (Quad naval exercise).
• Economic Security Initiative (2025):
  • Cooperation in semiconductors, critical minerals, pharma supply chains, clean energy.
  • Aimed at reducing dependence on China-dominated supply chains.
• Indo-Pacific Vision:
  • Both advocate Free, Open, Rules-based Indo-Pacific (FOIP).
  • Maritime cooperation in South China Sea, Indian Ocean, and under Quad.

Geopolitical Context of 2025 Visit

• China Factor:
  • India–China ties still tense post-Galwan (2020), but limited thaw (trade facilitation, resumed flights, visas).
  • Modi’s parallel visit to China (Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit) shows strategic balancing.
• U.S. Factor (Trump 2.0):
  • U.S. reliability questioned due to erratic foreign policy, weakening of Quad commitment.
  • India seeks strategic autonomy — deepening Japan ties cushions against U.S. unpredictability.
• Quad’s Uncertainty:
  • Japan, India, Australia want continuity; U.S. disengagement threatens Quad’s operational credibility.

Political & Diplomatic Messaging

• Japan as Anchor Partner:
  • Unlike U.S. (unpredictable) and China (competitive, mistrust), Japan offers consistency, resources, and shared democratic values.
• India’s Flexibility:
  • Engaging China for stability, Japan for strategic depth, U.S. despite unpredictability.
  • Shows “multi-alignment” strategy without compromising on Indo-Pacific clarity.
• Signal to Region:
  • India is deepening ties with like-minded democracies (Japan, Australia) while keeping open dialogue with rivals.
  • Enhances India’s image as an independent pole in multipolar Asia.

Challenges in the Relationship

• Implementation delays: Bullet Train project faces land acquisition hurdles.
• Trade imbalance: India imports 2.5x more from Japan than it exports.
• Japan’s domestic constraints: Ageing population, slow growth may limit overseas commitments.
• Geopolitical risks: China’s pushback against Indo-Pacific cooperation and Quad.

Future Prospects

• Economic: Strengthening supply chains (semiconductors, EVs, green hydrogen, digital infra).
• Strategic: Closer defence-industrial cooperation; more joint exercises.
• Regional Role:
  • Co-lead Indo-Pacific initiatives in Southeast Asia and Indian Ocean.
  • Support for capacity building in Africa (third-country cooperation).
• Global Governance:
  • Japan’s support for India’s UNSC permanent seat bid.
  • Collaboration in G20, Quad, and climate forums.

Strategic Significance

• For India:
  • Reliable economic and security partner amidst U.S. unpredictability and Chinese rivalry.
  • Key to Make in India, Digital India, and Atmanirbhar Bharat.
• For Japan:
  • India as growth market + counterweight to China in Asia.
  • Partner for securing critical supply chains.
• For Indo-Pacific:
  • India–Japan axis forms the most stable leg of the Quad.
  • Reinforces democratic values, maritime security, and rule of law.