Quashing a year-old sedition FIR registered by Himachal police in opposition to journalist Vinod Dua for his social media video criticising the federal government and hitting out at PM Modi for the miseries of migrant labourers within the wake of final 12 months’s lockdown, Justices U U Lalit and Vineet Saran mentioned going by the allegations within the FIR and after perusing the content material of Dua’s video, components of the offences of sedition or defamation weren’t made out. The SC additionally warded off the specter of invoking the Disaster Management Act in opposition to Dua.
SC: Dua’s views don’t represent any offence
The SC mentioned the views expressed by Vinod Dua didn’t represent any offence underneath the Disaster Management Act or any provision of the IPC. But the courtroom refused to equate journalists with docs in whose favour the apex court had dominated medical practitioner dealing with cost of negligence shouldn’t be arrested with out a preliminary inquiry.
The courtroom rejected Dua’s plea, made by senior advocate Vikas Singh, for a route to the Centre and states to arrange a committee to look at the costs levelled in an FIR in opposition to any journalist with 10 years’ expertise. Dua had pleaded a journalist needs to be arrested solely when the committee was happy that the costs required arrest.
In latest years, journalists have usually come underneath assault in several elements of the nation. In many circumstances, spurious costs have been slapped on them. Given this backdrop, the Supreme Court’s judgment is most welcome. It’s notable that the apex courtroom didn’t lay down any new guidelines. Rather, it reminded the police a couple of landmark case that occurred 60 years in the past. The unhappy fact is that authorities must be repeatedly informed about well-established democratic norms nowadays.
Writing the 117-page judgment, Justice Lalit extensively referred to the 60-year-old, five-judge structure bench judgment in Kedar Nath Singh case, during which the apex courtroom had laid down the definition of what constituted the offence of sedition and had dominated citizen’s proper to criticism, nonetheless harsh, may by no means be a floor to immediate police to lodge an FIR underneath Section 124A of IPC (sedition).
“The principles culled out from the decision in Kedar Nath Singh show a citizen has a right to criticise or comment upon the measures undertaken by the government and its functionaries, so long as he does not incite people to violence against the government established by law or with the intention of creating public disorder; and that it is only when the words or expressions have pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order that Sections 124A and 505 of the IPC must step in,” the bench mentioned.
“Every journalist will be entitled to protection in terms of Kedar Nath Singh, as every prosecution under Sections 124A and 505 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 added.