'Every Journalist Is Entitled To Protection': Top Court Dismissed Sedition Case Against Vinod Dua

The Supreme Court dismissed sedition and other charges filed by a Himachal Pradesh BJP official, on Thursday, against journalist Vinod Dua for expressing statements critical of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Central administration.

“Every journalist is entitled to protection under the Kedar Nath Singh case (which defined the scope of the offence of sedition under Section 124A IPC),” the Supreme Court stated. In Kedar Nath Singh (1962), five Supreme Court justices stated unequivocally that "allegedly seditious speech and expression may be punished only if the statement is an "incitement" to "violence" or "public disorder."

However, the SC denied Vinod Dua's second petition, which sought the creation of a committee to investigate claims against journalists before filing an FIR. He had stated that no FIR should be filed against a journalist with more than ten years of experience unless the committee accepts it. According to the court, this prayer would be an intrusion on the legislative realm.

After hearing arguments for Dua, the Himachal Pradesh government, and the complainant in the case, a bench of Justices U.U. Lalit and Vineet Saran reserved judgement for 6th October 2020.

On 6th May 2020, an FIR was launched against Dua at Kumarsain police station in Shimla district on the basis of a complaint by BJP politician Shyam, and a journalist was invited to join the investigation. It charged people with sedition, public annoyance, printing defamatory articles, and public mischief under several sections of the Indian Penal Code.

According to the allegation, Dua accused Prime Minister Modi of manipulating "deaths and terror incidents" to gain votes on his YouTube show.

In June of last year, the Supreme Court awarded Dua protection from arrest until further orders were issued. It had, however, refused to stay the current investigation against him. Dua was summoned by the police and requested to join the investigation through video conference.

In addition to the quashing of the FIR, Dua has asked for "exemplary damages" for "harassment" in the plea. The petition also requested that the Supreme Court issue a directive that FIRs against media professionals with at least ten years of experience be barred from being filed "unless cleared by a committee to be appointed by each state government." This committee will be made up of the chief justice of the high court or a judge chosen by her, the leader of the opposition, and the home minister.

According to the petition, the Supreme Court has been “emphasising the need of distancing police from the ruling party in the state,” but “none of the major political parties in power in various states are willing to relinquish control over the police.”

“There is a recent trend against the media in which state governments that do not find a particular telecast to be in sync with their political ideologies register FIRs against persons of the media primarily to harass and intimidate them so that they succumb to the state's line or else face the consequences at the hands of the police,” the plea claimed.

The filing of an FIR and the use of coercive measures against Dua constituted a “direct and flagrant violation” of his fundamental rights, according to the plea.

A complaint against Dua was filed in Himachal Pradesh just hours after the Delhi High Court delayed further police action on an FIR filed by the Delhi police. A case was also opened by the Delhi police on the basis of a complaint filed by a BJP politician.

In a different judgement last week, the apex court stated that there is a need to define the limits of sedition, adding that portions of the Indian Penal Code dealing with sedition require interpretation, particularly in the context of media freedom.

The observation came as the top court postponed coercive action against two Telugu-language television stations accused of sedition by Andhra Pradesh police for airing a statement by an MP who had rebelled against the state's ruling YSR Congress Party.

The bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, L. Nageswara Rao, and S. Ravindra Bhat stated that the Andhra Police's sedition FIRs against TV5 News and ABN Andhra Jyoti appeared to be an attempt to "muzzle media freedom."