Image Courtesy:livelaw.in
In the Vinod Dua Sedition matter, the Supreme Court has ruled that 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.
Vinod Dua, who was booked for sedition for criticising the Central Government’s policy of an unplanned Covid-19 lockdown, was granted relief by the top court as it quashed the FIR against him.
The Supreme Court Bench of Justices UU Lalit and Vineet Saran referred to the landmark case of Kedarnath Singh vs State of Bihar (1962), and held 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 charges of sedition and public mischief of the Indian Penal Code must step in.
Under this established precedent, the court held that “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.”
The court reiterated that for offences of Sedition and public mischief, “only such activities which would be intended or have a tendency to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence – are rendered penal.”
The FIR registered at Police Station Kumarsain, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh alleged that Dua’s show made unfounded and bizarre allegations against the Prime Minister by stating that he used deaths and terror attacks to garner votes. The complainant said that Dua endorsed in his show that the government did not have enough testing facilities and had made false statements about the availability of the Personal Protective Kits (PPE).
The complainant, BJP leader Ajay Shyam, also claimed that his show could create panic amongst the public and disturb public peace by trying to spread false information. By making such false statements about inadequate facilities, it was alleged that Vinod is spreading fear amongst the people which will result in panic and people hoarding essentials which is absolutely unnecessary. It was also alleged that his show had caused the migrant labour exodus amid the lockdown.
The court noted the allegations and said that by the time Dua’s show was up and running on March 30, migrant workers in huge numbers had already started moving to their villages. “If the petitioner in his talk show uploaded on 30.03.2020, that is even before the matter was taken up by this Court, made certain assertions in his 5th and 6th statement, 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”, asserted the court.
The court ruled that Dua was not spreading any false information and that “the situation was definitely alarming around 30.03.2020 and as a journalist if the petitioner showed some concern, could it be said that he committed offences as alleged.”
The court opined that Vinod Dua’s statements, in light of the principles emanating from the Kedar Nath Singh 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”. They were certainly not made with the intent to incite people or showed a tendency to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resorting to violence.
Accordingly, the FIR pertaining to sedition and other Indian Penal Code charges of public nuisance and printing defamatory matter were quashed.
The judgment may be read here:
Related:
SC quashes Sedition case against journalist Vinod Dua
SC mulls laying guidelines for application of Sedition law on journalists