Constitutional Validity of Controversial Provisions under the BNS
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which replaced the Indian Penal Code, has introduced, modified, or omitted several provisions that have sparked constitutional debate. Below is a discussion of the constitutional validity of some of its most controversial provisions, referencing recent legal and academic analysis.

1. Replacement of Sedition with "Acts Endangering Sovereignty, Unity and Integrity"
Background: The BNS has removed the explicit offence of sedition (Section 124A, IPC) and replaced it with a new offence targeting acts endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.

Constitutional Issues: The sedition law’s constitutional validity was challenged on the grounds of violating Articles 14 (equality), 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech), and 21 (right to life and personal liberty). The Supreme Court had previously upheld sedition’s validity only under Article 19(1)(a), but evolving jurisprudence has called for a broader reassessment.

Current Concerns: The new BNS provision, while omitting the term "sedition," is similarly broad and may be vulnerable to constitutional challenge for vagueness and potential misuse against free speech. The Supreme Court has already indicated the need for careful scrutiny of such provisions to ensure they do not infringe on fundamental rights.

2. Section 69: Sexual Intercourse by Employing Deceitful Means
Background: Section 69 of the BNS criminalizes sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means, such as false promises of marriage.

Constitutional Issues: Critics argue that the provision is prone to misuse, perpetuates outdated notions about female agency, and may infringe upon personal liberty and privacy (protected under Article 21). There are concerns that the section could criminalize consensual relationships based on subjective interpretations of "deceit," raising questions about the principle of legality and the right to a fair trial.

Potential for Challenge: The overbreadth and ambiguity of the provision could invite constitutional challenges for violating Articles 14 and 21, particularly if it leads to arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.

3. Definition of Mental Illness and Exclusion of Mental Retardation
Background: The BNS changes the defence of unsound mind to "mental illness," which excludes mental retardation but includes substance abuse. This means individuals with mental retardation may be prosecuted, while those voluntarily intoxicated could be exonerated.

Constitutional Issues: This redefinition raises equality concerns under Article 14, as it may result in unequal treatment of similarly situated individuals. The exclusion of mental retardation from the defence could be challenged as arbitrary and inconsistent with the principle of equal protection.

4. New Offences and Enhanced Punishments
Background: The BNS introduces new offences (such as terrorism and organized crime) and increases punishments for certain acts (e.g., hit-and-run cases).

Constitutional Issues: While the legislature has the power to define offences and prescribe punishments, such provisions must satisfy the test of reasonableness under Articles 14 and 21. Any disproportionate or arbitrary punishment could be challenged as violating the right to life and personal liberty.