Veteran journalist Vinod Dua, 67, passed away on Saturday, announced his Mallika Dua on her Instagram page. She wrote, “Our irreverent, fearless and extraordinary father, Vinod Dua has passed away. He lived an inimitable life, rising from the refugee colonies of Delhi to the peak of journalistic excellence for over 42 years, always, always speaking truth to power. He is now with our mom, his beloved wife Chinna in heaven where they will continue to sing, cook, travel and drive each other up the wall.”

She had earlier informed that he was in a critical condition and had been admitted in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) for a few days now. He had survived a severe Covid-19 infection earlier this year. Unfortunately his wife, Dr Padmavati ‘Chinna’ Dua who had also contracted Covid at the same time, succumbed in June.

Vinod Dua had been in fragile health for a while now, and was recently hospitalised when his condition deteriorated. He was moved to the ICU of Apollo Hospital on Monday.

Known as one of the pioneers of TV journalism in India, Vinod Dua had worked with Doordarshan and NDTV for years, and had then done shows on other TV channels and most recently was a regular on online news portals till his health allowed.

He had remained active on social media and shared his health updates as he recovered from Covid-19 at home. Dua is survived by daughters, Bakul Dua, a clinical psychologist, and Mallika Dua, a comedian and actor.

He will be cremated on December 5 at Delhi’s Lodhi road crematorium at noon.

Related

Is a third wave of Covid-19 coming this festive season?

The post Vinod Dua passes away at 67 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

The post Citizens have the right to criticise the Government without inciting violence: SC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Supreme Court has quashed the Sedition case against journalist Vinod Dua registered at the Himachal Pradesh Police in connection with a video uploaded on YouTube last year criticising the Central government’s poor implementation of the Covid-19 lockdown.

Bar & Bench quoted the Division Bench of Justices UU Lalit and Vineet Saran saying, “We have quashed the proceedings and FIR. Every journalist will be entitled to the protection under Kedar Nath Singh (sedition) judgment.”

In this landmark ruling, the constitutionality of Sedition law was upheld but the 5 judge Bench also said that the offense of Sedition is constituted only when the words spoken have the tendency or intention to create disorder or disturb public peace by resorting to violence. 

However, the Bench rejected a prayer by Vinod Dua to direct that no FIR should be registered against any media personnel with 10 years’ experience unless cleared by an expert committee. The court ruled, “We have rejected the committee formation prayer since it will be directly encroaching upon the legislative domain. However, the FIR against Vinod Dua stands quashed”, reported B&B.

An FIR was registered against him based on a complaint filed by BJP leader Ajay Shyam after he made personal comments against Prime Minister Narendra Modi on his YouTube program titled “Vinod Dua show”.

He was reportedly booked under Indian Penal Code sections 124A (sedition), 268 (public nuisance), 501 (printing defamatory matter) and 505 (intent to cause public mischief). Dua was also charged for offences under the Disaster Management Act including spreading of misinformation and false claims.

According to LiveLaw, Ajay Shyam had alleged that Dua, in his YouTube show, accused the Prime Minister of using “deaths and terror attacks” to get votes. On June 14, 2020, the top court had granted Dua protection from arrest till further orders. However, it had refused to stay the ongoing investigation against him.

On the other hand, Vinod Dua had submitted before the court that lodging of FIR and coercive steps against him amounted to direct and brazen violation of his fundamental rights.

As per Bar & Bench, he also stated in his petition, “The Petitioner also made a reference to the politicisation of the army’s attack in response to the Pulwama Attack and usage of the same in the last elections. There was nothing in the video which could be remotely termed to be criminal.”

On the issue of this controversial provision and invocation of sedition, the Supreme Court is mulling interpreting the law, especially on its application to freedom of press. The court made this observation while granting protection to two news channels of Andhra Pradesh from coercive action as they were charged of Sedition, promoting enmity and making statements conducing to public mischief.

Justice Chandrachud said that if a TV channel says something, it cannot be termed as sedition, and that “some guidelines must be set”.

Related:

SC mulls laying guidelines for application of Sedition law on journalists
SC to consider Constitutional validity of Sedition law, issues notice

The post SC quashes Sedition case against journalist Vinod Dua appeared first on SabrangIndia.