Case: Vinod Dua v. Union of India
The Supreme Court dismissed an FIR filed by a local BJP leader in Himachal Pradesh against senior journalist Vinod Dua. The FIR had alleged him guilty of sedition and other offences related to his YouTube show that included critical remarks about the Prime Minister and the Union Government. 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 the verdict for October 6, 2020.
The Court observed -
"Every journalist is entitled to the protection under the Kedar Nath Singh judgment (which defined the ambit of the offence of sedition under Section 124A IPC)", the court stated. The Supreme Court read down Section 124A IPC in the case Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar (1962) and concluded that the provision's application should be confined to "acts involving the intention or tendency to create disorder or disruption of law and order; or incitement to violence."
The bench, however, denied Vinod Dua's second request for the formation of a committee to investigate claims against journalists before filing FIRs, and that no FIR be filed against a journalist with more than ten years of experience until cleared by the committee. According to the Court, this prayer would be an intrusion on the legislative domain.
The FIR had provisions of IPC for sedition, public nuisance, printing defamatory materials, and public mischief at Kumarsain police station in Shimla district, and the journalist was summoned to join the investigation.
Shyam claimed that Dua accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of using "deaths and terror attacks" to gain votes on his YouTube show.
Previously, the Supreme Court awarded Dua protection from arrest until further instructions. It had, however, refused to stay the current investigation against him. The Apex Court had directed Dua to join the investigation by video-conferencing or online mode to the police summons seeking his physical appearance. In addition to the quashing of the FIR, Dua had requested "exemplary damages" for "harassment" in the petition. He had also requested that "henceforth FIRs against persons belonging to the media with at least 10 years standing to be not registered unless cleared by a committee to be formed by every state government, the composition of which should comprise the Chief Justice of the High Court or a Judge designated by him, the leader of the Opposition, and the State Home Minister." According to Dua, press freedom is a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the view was upheld by the Apex Court.