New Delhi: The Supreme Court Thursday quashed the sedition case registered against senior journalist Vinod Dua in Himachal Pradesh.
The verdict was pronounced by a bench led by Justice U.U. Lalit on Dua’s petition seeking quashing of the case registered against him in connection with a video uploaded to YouTube last year. In the video, Dua is criticising the Narendra Modi government’s handling of the Covid-19 lockdown.
The bench extensively relied on the principles outlined in the Kedar Nath judgment to give relief to Dua.
The court said that the senior journalist’s statement “if read in the light of the principles emanating” from the judgment and “against the backdrop of the circumstances when they were made, can at best be termed as expression of disapprobation of actions of the Government and its functionaries so that prevailing situation could be addressed quickly and efficiently”.
Delivered in 1962, the Kedar Nath judgment upheld the constitutional validity of sedition law in India. However, it held that free speech, discussions on matters of government functioning and their criticism, and freedom of press are “essential for the proper functioning of the processes of popular government”.
The bench also said that every journalist will be entitled to protection under the judgment.
“It must however be clarified that every Journalist will be entitled to protection in terms of Kedar Nath Singh, as every prosecution under Sections 124A (sedition) and 505 (publishing or circulating rumour) of the IPC must be in strict conformity with the scope and ambit of said Sections as explained in, and completely in tune with the law laid down in Kedar Nath Singh,” it ruled.
To prosecute Dua for the alleged offences would violate his rights of freedom of speech and expression, the court held.
Thursday’s verdict comes days after another apex court bench decided to examine the interpretation of sedition law, particularly in the light of media rights and free speech.
Also read: ‘Satisfy conscience of the court’: When SC sought status report in sedition case against Vinod Dua
Vinod Dua’s case
Justice Lalit’s bench rejected Dua’s plea to restrain state police from registering sedition cases against any media personnel with 10 years’ experience unless cleared by a committee comprising the Chief Justice of the state high court or a judge designated by him, the leader of the opposition and the home minister of the state.
To allow such a plea would be directly encroaching the domain of the legislature, the court said.
Dua had approached the court in May last year after the Himachal Pradesh Police asked him to join the probe in the case that was registered based on a complaint by BJP leader Shyam at Kumarsain Police Station in Shimla district.
In his complaint, Shyam alleged that Dua, in his video, had accused PM Modi of using “deaths and terror attacks” to get votes.
According to the first information report, Dua, in his YouTube program ‘The Vinod Dua Show’, made statements that could have incited communal hatred and led to a breach of peace and communal disharmony.
On 14 June last year, the top court protected the journalist from facing any coercive action in the case. However, it refused to stay the ongoing investigation, asking Dua to join the probe through video-conferencing or online mode.
The bench reserved its verdict on 6 October.
Also read: ‘Instrument of harassment’: Editors Guild condemns FIR against journalist Vinod Dua
Argument against sedition
Dua’s lawyer, senior advocate Vikas Singh, contested the charges and invoked the provision of right to freedom of speech and expression in his defence. He argued that as a journalist, it was Dua’s right to criticise the government.
“The sedition is committed when you incite violence, when you incite public disorder, but where is it in this case?” Singh had submitted.
“The government allows for the participation of the public and this is a basic feature of a democratic country. Without this, no one will prosper, if people do not go out and share their views,” he stated.
Besides seeking quashing of the FIR, Dua, in the plea, also sought exemplary damages for harassment.
He also sought direction from the apex court that no FIRs be filed against media persons with at least 10 years standing, unless cleared by a special panel constituting the Chief Justice of the state high court or a judge designated by him, the leader of the opposition and the state home minister.
Top court order on migrants also called situation ‘alarming’
The bench also referred to an SC order, passed on 31 March, on a PIL filed in connection with the migrants’ movement after the nationwide lockdown was imposed last year.
The order, it said, also posed it as an “alarming situation” and “the magnitude of the problem which required about 6,66,291 persons to be provided shelter and 22,88,279 persons to be provided food”.
It then talked about Dua’s show on the same issue, which was telecast a day before the SC order, and said it was clear that migrants in huge numbers were moving towards their hometowns and villages.
“In the circumstances, there would naturally be some apprehension about the shelter and food to be provided to them en-route,” the court said.
Recognising his right as a journalist, the court added that Dua was not spreading false information or rumours.
“..he would be within his rights to say that as a Journalist he was touching upon issues of great concern so that adequate attention could be bestowed to the prevailing problems,” it said, noting that the movement of migrants had begun long before Dua’s show got uploaded.
“The situation was definitely alarming around 30 March, 2020 and as a journalist if the petitioner showed some concern, could it be said that he committed offences as alleged,” the court noted.
Dua was also given a clean chit from defamation charges. During the hearing before SC, the state had attempted to invoke charges against Dua that were not specifically set out in the FIR. These related to violation of Disaster Management Act and Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, which is used to prosecute someone who violates a government order.
The state had alleged that Dua’s talk show was against two state administration orders that restrained citizens from spreading false alarm. The court rejected these charges as well.
(Edited by Manasa Mohan)
Also read: Indian citizens and media have been terrorised enough with sedition. SC must end it now