India, Aug. 25 -- When the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) was enacted in 2023, it was done with the express intention of creating a new regime of lawmaking that moved from punitive intent towards justice. Central to this effort was the excising of the colonial-era provision of sedition, used by the British to impair the independence movement and jail freedom fighters, and put in abeyance by the Supreme Court for its indiscriminate deployment by various governments to chill legitimate criticism. Unfortunately, the language of section 152 of the new law - which punishes those who "excite or attempt to excite, secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities, or encourages feelings of separatist activities or endangers sovereignty or unity and integrity of India" - appears to be vulnerable to similar excesses. The latest example of this phenomenon came last week, after the top court had to step in to protect two journalists in connection with a first information report registered by Assam Police. The complaint in question was filed on May 9 under section 152 of the BNS but remained dormant till last week when the police issued a summons. The court's protection may have come as a relief to the journalists, but this isn't about one case (this isn't the first time a police department is filing a case under the section). Questions about the role of the police, its intentions in booking the journalists, and the contribution of the expansive but vague language of section 152 linger. Journalists are not above the law, and authorities are well within their rights to investigate any wrongdoing. But, as underlined repeatedly by the Supreme Court, journalists perform critical functions in a democracy, and any action to suppress criticism or chill free speech must be discouraged. In a country where endemic delays in the criminal justice system are often weaponised by the police, complaints and summons can become effective tools to ensure that the process becomes the punishment, irrespective of the final judicial verdict. Police overreach and vaguely worded provisions cannot be allowed to pose a risk to constitutional guarantees. As the top court said, we are watching....