In a landmark judgment the Rajasthan High Court has ruled that Section 152 of the Bharat Nagar Sanhita, oft equated with sedition, cannot be misused to suppress dissent or legitimate expression. The court said that democracy flourishes on free speech and dissent and any attempt to curb these rights is unconstitutional and counterproductive.Case Summary This was a case that started as a petition to challenge the invocation of Section 152 BNS against those persons who were said to have made dissent against governmental policies. The contention of the petitioners is that this provision, as a sedition law, is being misused to stifle the criticism and punish people for exercising their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and expression. The government defended the actions that it took against the group by stating that the statements of the individuals were inflammatory, hence posing a threat to public order and national security. Court's Observations Justice Manoj Sharma, while delivering the judgment observed, The Section 152 BNS bears an eerie similarity with the now-scuttled sedition law, hitherto dealt under section 124A of IPC, and the said sections had been held obselete by Supreme Court of India. It stated in its judgment that dis-contentment is the feature of democracy and can not synonym to be a state hostile and discontent with a nation. Judgment Criticism of government policies or actions, no matter how harsh, does not fall within the ambit of sedition or a crime. To hold such dissenting voices as sedition under Section 152 BNS amounts to an attack on free speech and democratic principles themselves. Holding : Laws/provisions restricting constitutional liberties pass through the test of reasonability and necessity. Here, the court applies S 152 BNS, incorrectly doesn't pass the tests by being too lax at a sufficient safeguard against being used wrongfully. Deliberating on a strong message against the tendency to misuse vaguely worded laws for curbing dissent which highlights the judicial role for upholding rights and checking governmental powers from being arbitrarily exercised. This verdict marks a long way in protecting civil liberties and that right to dissent continues to remain part of Indian democracy.