Read Time: 12 minutes

Supreme Court has allowed Senior Journalist Vinod Dua’s plea seeking quashing of FIR against Sedition charges, while rejecting the second prayer of constituting a committee to approve registration of FIR for media persons with a standing of 10 years or more.

A Division Bench of Justice UU Lalit and Justice Vineet Saran, while allowing partial relief to the petitioner, held,

“… prosecution of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 124A and 505 (1) (b) of the IPC would be unjust. Those offences, going by the allegations in the FIR and other attending circumstances, are not made out at all and any prosecution in respect thereof would be violative of the rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.”

With respect to the charges levied under Section 501 and 268 IPC, Court added that there was nothing defamatory said by the petitioner and neither was it a case of public nuisance.

With respect to the offence not mentioned under the FIR, but made out as per the Respondents, under the Disaster Management Act and Section 188 IPC, Court observed,

“We need not go into the technical issue whether the initiation of the proceedings in respect of the offences punishable under DM Act and/or under Section 188 of the IPC could only be after an appropriate complaint would be made in writing as submitted by the petitioner, as in our considered view, none of these offences as submitted by the respondents get attracted in the instant matter.”

“Statements by the petitioner, if read in the light of the principles emanating from the decision in Kedar Nath Singh 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 tendency to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence. The petitioner was within the permissible limits laid down in the decision of this”, the bench clarified.

Reliance was inter-alia placed on Balgangadhar Tilak v. Queen Empress, King Emperor v. Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao, Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India, Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra and the most recent observation on Section 153A & 505 IPC in Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya.

For the second prayer of issuing direction to each State for constituting committee to monitor registration of FIR against Senior Media Persons, Court referred to the observations in Jacob Mathew and Subhash Kashinath Mahajan, to call it “completely outside the scope of the statutory framework.”

“Any relief granted in terms of second prayer would certainly, in our view, amount to encroachment upon the field reserved for the legislature”, the bench added.

It was argued by counsel for the petitioner that statements in the FIR; “Hon’ble Prime Minister used threats and terror acts to garner votes” and “Prime Minister garnered votes through act of terrorism” were factually incorrect and the allegations made were required to be seen in the light of law laid down in Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar, (1962) Supp. 2 SCR 769.

Reference was further placed on Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1 and Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP, (2014) 2 SCC 1.

Learned Solicitor, Mr. Mehta appearing for the State of Himachal Pradesh, submitted that allegations made in the FIR were to be presumed true and the matter must be allowed to be investigated into. In response to the second prayer of not allowing registration of FIR for Journalists above 10 years of practice, unless cleared by a committee constituted by each State Government, it was contended that granting such a relief would amount to “overstepping the field and area reserved for the Legislature”

Learned ASG, Mr. Raju appearing for the Union of India, submitted that the statements made by petitioner were in the nature of incitement to disobey the orders by concerned authorities, pursuant to lockdown, including order dated 31.03.2020 in WP (C) No. 468 of 2020 passed by the Top Court. Reliance was also placed on Norms of Journalistic Conduct which impose an obligation upon the petitioner to check facts and data thoroughly before any publication.

Petitioner had approached the Top Court seeking quashing of FIR dated 06.05.2020, registered under Section(s) 124A, 268, 501, 505 IPC on the complaint of Ajay Shyam and PO Kiara Tehsil, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.

Direction was sought for quashing of FIR and No FIR to be registered against media persons with at least 10 years of practice, without the approval of a Committee to be constituted by each State Government.

Statements leading to registration of FIR under abovementioned Sections:

“i) Our biggest failure has been that we do not have enough facilities to carry out testing.

ii) Till now we do not have any information how many (PPE suits, N95 masks and masks of 3 ply) we have and how many will become available by when.

iii) The Ventilators needed in other countries and in India, respiratory devices and sanitisers were being exported till 24.3.2020 instead of keeping these for use in our country.

iv) That supply chains got disrupted due to blockage of roads and now it is being heard that transportation of essential goods has been allowed.

v) It is not difficult to imagine that when the supply chains have been closed, when the shops are closed, some people had gone to the extent of fearing food riots which have not happened in our country could happen.

vi) When people started returning from Mumbai …. That should have been a big signal for the Government about the effect the complete lockdown in the country can bring about, but no lessons were learnt.”

Also Read: Supreme Court Allows Quashing Of FIR Against Journalist Vinod Dua; Refrains From Constituting A Committee Calling It “Encroachment Of Legislative Powers”

Case Title: Vinod Dua v. Union of India | WP (Crl.) No. 154 of 2020