By Samriddhi Thakar
The Supreme Court on Thursday quashed sedition charges against journalist Vinod Dua for quoting an old landmark Judgement of Kedar Nath Singh case that stated “Every journalist is entitled to protection.”
The Court also stated that no journalist could be arrested on sedition charges merely for criticizing the Government if it does not incite any violence against the Government or hatred between communities. It all started as an FIR was filed against Dua and he was charged under Section 124A (Sedition), 268 (Public nuisance), 501 (Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory), and 505 (statements conducive to public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by a BJP leader regarding comments made by the journalist in his YouTube video.
The bench led by Justice U.U Lalit took the reference of Kedar Nath Singh Case (which defined the ambit of the offense of sedition under Section 124A of the IPC) and held that “Every journalist will be entitled to be protected” under this case. But it must be clarified that every journalist will be entitled to the protection in terms of Kedar Nath Singh, as every prosecution under Section 124A and 505 of the IPC must be in strict conformity with the scope and ambit of the said Sections as explained in, and completely in tune with the law laid down in Kedar Nath Singh.
The Court also held that charging Dua under the sedition would violate his freedom of speech and expression. The Court also waived off the charge that was created against him under Disaster Management Act’s Section 52 (Punishment for false claim) and Section 54 (Punishment for false warning.)
The Court further quashed the FIR registered against the journalist but refused the prayer of Dua that no FIR be filed against a person belonging to media with 10 years of standing. The Court said, “to allow such plea would be directly encroaching the domain of the legislature.”
Case of Vinod Dua
Last year on 30th March 2020, Mr. Vinod Dua, in his show namely The Vinod Dua show which aired on YouTube had made bizarre allegations against the Modi Government. He had alleged that the Government did not have enough testing facilities, PPE kits, and the exports of ventilators and sanitizers were stopped way later.
The Complainant had alleged that the journalist Vinod Dua made some false and malicious news by stating that PM had garnered the votes through acts of terrorism i.e. by using death and terror attacks. He also created panic among the people and disturbed public peace by spreading false information about the testing facilities.
Arguments against Complainant
It was contended by the learned counsel Vikas Singh for the petitioner that the contents of the video were pure and simple critical analysis of the functioning of the Government, and they cannot be said to be offenses under Section 124A, 268,501 and 505 of the IPC.
He further stated that for establishing the ingredient of sedition it is important to prove certain acts that would bring to the Government established by law in India hatred or contempt which would incite violence or create public disorder. The actions of the petitioner were within his Right of Free Speech and Expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. But in the present case, there is no such suggestion against the Government of India or State Government that would incite public violence.
Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression
India is a democratic country. Every citizen has been granted certain rights. Similarly, Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India states that every person has freedom of speech and expression. It is a fundamental right of a person. Every person has a right to express his or her opinions freely without fear of sanctions from the Government.
Thus, every person has a right to critically comment against the Government as this would help the Government to improve. The time has gone were criticizing against the Government was considered to be sedition. Now, everyone has a right to talk and criticize about the affairs of the Government. But the criticisms should be fair and should not be defamatory. There is a thin line between permissible speech and impermissible speech. One has to follow the thin line as otherwise, it would lead to certain consequences.
Who is Vinod Dua?
Vinod Dua is an Indian journalist. He has worked for Doordarshan and NDTV India. He is a recipient of the Padma Shri award for Journalism in 2008. He has also received B.D Goenka award for excellence in journalism. He has been awarded the RedInk Life Time Achievement Award by the Mumbai Press Club.
What is Sedition?
Sedition is an offense of libel defamation against the State. According to Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sedition means whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, with fine or imprisonment which may extend to three years with fine. It simply means that a person must be punished for disaffection or disloyalty and feelings of enmity towards the State.
Landmark Judgements on Sedition
Following are some of the landmark Judgements related to sedition.
In the year 1992, Father of the Nation Gandhiji was charged for sedition under Section 124A for writing three politically sensitive articles that were published in his weekly journal Young India. He was charged with “bringing or attempting to excite disaffection towards His Majesty’s Government established by law in the British India”. Therefore, he was sentenced an imprisonment of six years.
In case of Romesh Thappar vs State of Madras, the petitioner had published few articles in a weekly magazine Crossroads. As he was writing these articles, a communist movement started gathering momentum and the Government of Madras imposed ban on the circulation of the magazines in some areas. Thus, an order was issued against him pursuant to the Section 9(1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949 whereby they imposed ban upon the entry and circulation of the journal in the Sate for the purpose of ensuring ‘public safety’ or preserving ‘public order.’ Aggrieved by this the petitioner approached the Supreme Court for violation of his fundamental rights. The Court applied the rule of Severability to Section 9(1-A) of the Act and held it to be void under Article 13(1) of the Constitution and thus ultra vires as it was inconsistent with the provisions of Part III of the Constitution.
In case of Ram Nandan vs State, the petitioner was sentenced to three years imprisonment for delivering a seditious speech. Therefore, he challenged the constitutionality of Section 124A of the IPC. The Allahabad Court held that Section 124A is ultra vires of Article 19(1) of the Constitution, both because it is not in the interests of public order as well as because the restrictions imposed thereby are not reasonable restrictions. The Court held that the provisions of Section 124 A have become void with the enforcement of the Constitution. The Court further stated that the petitioner had committed no offence and his detention was illegal.
Conclusion
Thus, it was right on the part of the Supreme Court to quash the allegations of sedition made against the eminent journalist Vinod Dua. India is a country where its citizen are granted certain fundamental rights. Free speech and expression are one of them.
Journalists have full right to criticize the Government as long as they are not inciting people to commit violence against the Government. In recent years, we have seen many cases like this in various parts of the country. So the Judgement given by the Supreme Court is welcoming and would help many journalists to speak critically without fearing the sanctions of the Government.
References
- Supreme Court’s Judgement on Vinod Dua available at main.sci.gov.in
- “SC Quashes Sedition Case Against Vinod Dua, Says Every Journalist Entitled to Protection,” The Wire, available at: thewire.in( last visited on 4 May 2021)
- Information on Vinod Dua, available at: en.wikipedia.org (last visited on 4 May 2021)
- India Kanoon, available at: indiankanoon (last visited on 4 May 2021)
- Krishnadas Rajagopal, “ Journalist entitled to protection against sedition says, Supreme Court, The Hindu, available at: thehindu.com (last visited on 4 May 2021)
- Republic of dissent: Gandhi’s sedition trial, The Mint, available at: ivemint( last visited on 4 May 2021)
- Ram Nandan vs State, AIR 1959 All 101, 1959 CriLJ 1, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/
- Udita Dalal, Romesh Thappar vs State of Madras , Latest Law, available at: latestlaws/ (visited on 4 May 2021)