NEW DELHI (TIP): The Supreme Court of India, on Thursday, June 3, quashed an FIR registered by the Himachal Pradesh Police against senior journalist Vinod Dua last year for his comments critical of the government’s handling of Covid-19 lockdown on YouTube.

“We are of the firm view that the 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,” a Bench headed by Justice UU Lalit said.

 

Mar 30, 2020: Dua’s YouTube video slams government over nationwide lockdown in 2020

May 6: FIR against Dua in HP by local BJP leader, alleging sedition

June 4: Another FIR against Dua in Delhi by a BJP spokesperson

June 10: Delhi HC stays probe into FIR lodged in Capital

June 12: HP Police summon Dua

June 13: Dua moves SC

June 14: SC restrains HP Police from arresting Dua, but doesn’t stay probe

Sep 16: Centre tells SC Dua’s show incited people to migrate during pandemic

June 3, 2021: SC quashes sedition case against Dua

The Bench, which had reserved its verdict on October 6 last year, said: “We have quashed the proceedings and the FIR. Every journalist will be entitled to protection under the Kedar Nath Singh judgment (on sedition).” While upholding the validity of Section 124A of the IPC (sedition), a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had in Kedar Nath Singh case (1962) restricted the scope of the law by saying that its application should be limited to “acts involving intention or tendency to create disorder, or disturbance of law and order; or incitement to violence”.

The Bench, however, rejected Dua’s prayer for setting up of a high-level committee in each state for prior vetting of sedition charges against journalists of 10-year standing, saying that “it will be directly encroaching upon the legislative domain”.

The Shimla FIR was registered at the instance of a BJP leader, who filed a criminal complaint against Dua, accusing him of instigating violence against the government by allegedly spreading fake news.

Quoting from its verdict in the Kedar Nath Singh case, the top court said, “A citizen has a right to say or write whatever he likes about the government, or its measures, by way of criticism or comment, so long as he does not incite people to violence against the government established by law or with the intention of creating public disorder.”

It said, “It’s only when the words or expressions have pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order that Sections 124A…of the IPC must step in.”

Referring to Dua’s alleged seditious statements, the Bench said they could “at best be termed as expression of disapprobation of actions of the government and its functionaries so that the prevailing situation could be addressed quickly.”

“They were certainly not made with the intent to incite people or showed a tendency to create disorder or disturbance of public peace. The petitioner was within the permissible limits laid down in the decision of this court in the Kedar Nath Singh case,” it said while quashing the First Information Report (FIR).

(Source: PTI)