Supreme Court Quashes Sedition FIR Against Journalist Vinod Dua: Vinod Dua vs. Union of India (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 03 June 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 319

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and Vineet Saran, J.

Can a journalist be charged with sedition for criticizing the government? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case involving journalist Vinod Dua. The court examined whether Dua’s critical remarks on his YouTube show amounted to sedition or were protected under the right to free speech. This judgment clarifies the boundaries between permissible criticism and seditious speech. The bench was composed of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran.

Case Background

The case began with an FIR filed against Vinod Dua on May 6, 2020, at the Kumarsain Police Station in Himachal Pradesh. The complaint alleged that during his YouTube show on March 30, 2020, Dua made false and malicious statements against the Prime Minister, suggesting he used deaths and terror attacks to garner votes. The complainant also accused Dua of spreading false information about the government’s preparedness for the COVID-19 pandemic, including claims about insufficient testing facilities and a lack of PPE kits. The FIR cited Sections 124-A (sedition), 268 (public nuisance), 501 (defamation), and 505 (statements conducing to public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The complainant, Ajay Shyam, asserted that Dua’s statements incited violence, disturbed public tranquility, and created panic among the public.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Following the registration of the FIR, the police issued a notice to Dua on June 11, 2020, under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), requiring his presence for interrogation. Dua responded on June 12, 2020, citing his age, health conditions, and COVID-19 travel restrictions, offering to cooperate online instead. The Supreme Court, on June 14, 2020, directed that Dua should not be arrested, and allowed the investigation to proceed through video conferencing. The Himachal Pradesh Police were permitted to interrogate Dua at his residence after giving him 24 hours prior notice. The State was also directed to file a status report on the investigation.

Legal Framework

The legal framework of this case revolves around several key sections of Indian law:

• Section 124A, IPC: This section defines sedition as any act that brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government. The court referred to the explanations of this section, clarifying that comments expressing disapproval of government measures without inciting hatred or disaffection do not constitute sedition.
• Section 505, IPC: This section deals with statements conducing to public mischief. The court examined whether Dua’s statements had the intent to cause fear or alarm to the public or incite any offense against the state.
• Section 501, IPC: This section relates to defamation by printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory. The court considered whether Dua’s statements were defamatory and if they fell under any exceptions.
• Section 268, IPC: This section defines public nuisance but does not prescribe any punishment.
• Sections 52 and 54 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (DM Act): These sections deal with false claims and warnings during a disaster. Section 52 punishes false claims for relief and Section 54 punishes false warnings leading to panic.
• Section 188, IPC: This section deals with disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant. The court examined if Dua’s statements violated any orders issued by public authorities.
• Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India: This article guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. The court considered whether the restrictions imposed on Dua’s speech were reasonable under Article 19(2).

Arguments

Petitioner (Vinod Dua):

• Dua’s counsel argued that the statements attributed to him in the FIR were factually incorrect. He emphasized that Dua did not state that the Prime Minister used deaths and terror attacks to garner votes, as alleged in the FIR.
• It was argued that the statements made by Dua were merely a critical analysis of the government’s functioning and did not incite violence or create public disorder, thereby not attracting Section 124A of the IPC.
• Dua’s counsel contended that as a journalist, he was entitled to critically analyze the government’s performance, and his actions were protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
• It was submitted that the ingredients for offences under Sections 501 and 505 of the IPC were not met.
• Dua sought guidelines for media professionals similar to those for medical professionals, as laid down in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, to protect against unwarranted prosecutions.

Respondents (Union of India & State of Himachal Pradesh):

• The respondents argued that the petition should not be entertained under Article 32 of the Constitution and that Dua should seek remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
• The respondents contended that Dua’s statements were intended to spread misinformation and cause panic, particularly during the pandemic, and that such actions were punishable under Sections 52 and 54 of the DM Act.
• It was argued that Dua’s statements about potential food riots were baseless and had the potential to spread panic.
• The respondents submitted that Dua’s actions also violated Section 188 of the IPC, as he allegedly disobeyed orders related to the lockdown.
• The respondents relied on the Norms of Journalistic Conduct by the Press Council of India, arguing that Dua failed to verify facts before making statements about the pandemic.
• It was also argued that Dua’s statements incited people against the government and created disaffection during a critical time.

Respondent No. 3 (Original Complainant):

• The original complainant argued that Dua’s statements were false and intended to create disaffection against the government.
• It was submitted that the statements had a tendency to disturb public peace and incite people against the government.
• The complainant referred to other episodes of Dua’s show to emphasize his alleged tendency to make false statements.

Innovativeness of the Argument:

The petitioner innovatively sought to extend the guidelines provided to medical professionals to journalists, arguing for similar protections against unwarranted prosecutions. This highlighted the critical role of media in a democracy and the need to safeguard their freedom to report and criticize without fear of reprisal.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the statements made by the petitioner in his talk show amounted to offences punishable under Sections 124A, 268, 501, and 505 of the IPC.
2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to protection against unwarranted prosecution similar to that extended to medical professionals.
3. Whether the proceedings under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Section 188 of the IPC were maintainable.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

Legal Provisions:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar [(1962) Supp. 2 SCR 769]:* The court heavily relied on this case to define the limits of sedition, emphasizing that criticism without incitement to violence is protected.
• Queen Empress v. Jogendra Chunder Bose [(1892) I.L.R. 19 Cal. 35]:* The court discussed the historical context of sedition, noting that disaffection means dislike or hatred.
• Queen-Empress v. Balgangadhar Tilak [(1898) I.L.R. 22 Bom. 112]:* The court analyzed the historical view of disaffection as the absence of affection, but did not follow it.
• Niharendu Dutt Majumdar v. The King Emperor [(1942) F.C.R. 38]:* The court discussed the Federal Court’s view that sedition requires incitement to violence or public disorder, which was not accepted by the Privy Council.
• King-Emperor v. Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao [74 IA 89]:* The court noted that the Privy Council held that incitement to violence is not a necessary ingredient of sedition, and did not follow it.
• Romesh Thappar v. The State of Madras [1950 SCR 594]:* The court highlighted the importance of free political discussion and the protection of fundamental rights.
• Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India and Others [(2020) 14 SCC 12]:* The court distinguished this case, where multiple FIRs were quashed, from the present case.
• Amish Devgan vs. Union of India and Others [(2021) 1 SCC 1]:* The court referred to this case where the court did not quash the FIRs but considered the issues on merits.
• Priya Prakash Varrier and Others vs. State of Telangana and Another [(2019) 12 SCC 432]:* The court relied on this case where an FIR was quashed for lack of malicious intent.
• Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1985) 1 SCC 641]:* The court discussed the importance of freedom of the press in a democratic society.
• S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram & Ors. [1989 (2) SCC 574]:* The court highlighted the importance of public discussion and the need to protect freedom of expression.
• The Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh and another v. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia [AIR 1960 SC 633]:* The court discussed the meaning of “public order” and its relation to public peace and safety.
• Manzar Sayeed Khan vs. State of Maharashtra and Another [(2007) 5 SCC 1]:* The court referred to this case to emphasize that intention to promote enmity must be judged by the language and circumstances.
• Patricia Mukhim vs. State of Meghalaya and Others [2021 SCC OnLine SC 258]:* The court cited this case, where the absence of intent to promote hatred led to quashing of the FIR.
• Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab [(2005) 6 SCC 1]:* The court discussed the guidelines for prosecuting medical professionals and the need to protect them from frivolous prosecutions.
• Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others [(2014) 2 SCC 1]:* The court discussed this case regarding the mandatory registration of FIRs and the need for preliminary inquiry in certain cases.
• Union of India v. State of Maharashtra and others [(2020) 4 SCC 761]:* The court discussed this case where certain guidelines for arrest were recalled.
• Social Action Forum For Manav Adhikar and another v. Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice and others [(2018) 10 SCC 443]:* The court discussed this case where certain guidelines for Section 498A IPC were reviewed and modified.
• Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra and another [(2018) 6 SCC 454]:* The court discussed this case where certain guidelines for arrest under the Atrocities Act were issued.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to protect the freedom of speech and expression, especially for journalists. The court emphasized that critical analysis of government performance is essential in a democracy and should not be stifled by the fear of sedition charges. The court was also concerned about the potential misuse of sedition laws to suppress dissent and criticism. The court carefully balanced the need to maintain public order with the right to free speech, ultimately siding with the latter in this case.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was significantly influenced by legal principles and precedents, as reflected in the higher percentage for “Law.” However, the factual analysis of the statements made by the petitioner and the circumstances surrounding them also played a crucial role.

Logical Reasoning

Final Order

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR against Vinod Dua, holding that his statements did not constitute sedition, defamation, or public mischief. The court emphasized that critical analysis of government performance is essential in a democracy and should not be stifled by the fear of sedition charges. The court also rejected the petitioner’s plea for a committee to vet FIRs against journalists, stating that such a direction would encroach upon the field reserved for the legislature. The court found that the proceedings under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, and Section 188 of the IPC were not maintainable.

Impact and Significance

This judgment is significant for several reasons:

• Protection of Free Speech: It reinforces the importance of free speech and expression, especially for journalists, in a democratic society.
• Limits of Sedition: It clarifies the limits of sedition laws, emphasizing that criticism of the government, without incitement to violence, does not constitute sedition.
• Safeguarding Dissent: It acts as a safeguard against the misuse of sedition laws to suppress dissent and critical analysis of government policies.
• Journalistic Freedom: It protects journalists from unwarranted prosecutions and allows them to perform their duties without fear of reprisal.
• Balancing Public Order and Free Speech: It demonstrates the court’s commitment to balancing the need for public order with the fundamental right to free speech.

The ruling is a landmark decision that reaffirms the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression, particularly for journalists, and sets a precedent against the misuse of sedition laws to stifle dissent. It serves as a reminder that in a vibrant democracy, criticism of the government is not only permissible but also essential for accountability and transparency.