[BREAKING] "Every journalist entitled to protection under Kedar Nath judgment:" Supreme Court quashes sedition case against journalist Vinod Dua

The Supreme Court on Thursday quashed the sedition case registered by the Himachal Pradesh Police against journalist Vinod Dua him in connection with his video uploaded on YouTube last year criticising the Central government's implementation of the Covid-19 lockdown..The verdict was delivered by a Bench of Justices UU Lalit and Vineet Saran. "Every Journalist will be entitled to protection in terms of Kedar Nath Singh, as every prosecution under Sections 124A and 505 of the IPC must be in strict conformity with the scope and ambit of said Sections as explained in, and completely in tune with the law laid down in Kedar Nath Singh," the Court ordered. The Court, however, rejected a prayer by Dua to direct that no FIR should be registered against any media personnel with 10 years experience unless cleared by an expert committee."We have rejected the committee formation prayer since it will be directly encroaching upon the legislative domain. However, the FIR against Vinod Dua stands quashed," the Court said. .In June 2020, the apex court had issued interim directions to protect Dua from arrest in the matter, although the Bench declined to stay the FIR filed in Himachal Pradesh by a BJP leader..Vinod Dua plea to quash FIR: Questions of Centre's accountability over migrant crisis, "layman" journalists raised as SC reserves verdict.Dua was accused of having made certain statements on his YouTube program, 'Vinod Dua show'. The statements in the episode streamed on March 30, 2020 were capable of inciting communal hatred and led to breach of peace and communal disharmony, it was alleged. .First Information Report was registered against him based on a complaint filed by BJP leader Ajay Shyam in this regard. .He was charged with grave offences under the IPC including sedition (Section 124A), public nuisance (Section 268), printing defamatory matter (Section 501) and intent to cause public mischief (Section 505). .Dua submitted in his petition before the Supreme Court that the video in question critically analysed the failures of the Government of India regarding the declaration of nationwide lockdown and the manner in which the same was implemented.“The Petitioner also made a reference to the politicization of the army’s attack in response to the Pulwama Attack and usage of the same in the last elections. There was nothing in the video which could be remotely termed to be criminal,” Dua stated in his petition..Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, arguing for Dua, had submitted that the allegation that Dua's show had caused the migrant labour exodus amid the COVID-19 lockdown was only an afterthought and it was not part of the complaint to begin with."The said argument has been made only to somehow justify the FIR," he said. .Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for government authorities, submitted that even if one cognisable offence is made out, the FIR cannot be quashed. He further added that offences under Sections 153 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), among other offences, are clearly made out in the FIR filed against Dua..On the question of whether Dua, being a journalist, is entitled to the protective measure of a preliminary inquiry, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, representing the complainant, argued"It is not that a journalist is bereft of a preliminary inquiry. (But) it will be left to the discretion of investigating agencies.".Solicitor General Tushar Mehta added that Dua's was a simple case concerning whether the powers of Section 482 CrPC or Article 32 of the Constitution must be applied to quash the FIR.If the Court finds that a case is made out, larger issues of journalistic expression etc. may not be looked into, Mehta had submitted..The Court in its judgment ruled that statements made by Dua regarding COVID-19 lockdown at best were "expression of disapprobation of actions of the Government and its functionaries so that prevailing situation could be addressed quickly and efficiently". They were certainly not made with the intent to incite people or showed tendency to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence, which are the necessary ingredients to make out an offence of sedition under Section 124A IPC, the Court said. ."It may be that certain factual details regarding the date when the lockdown came into effect were not completely correct. However, considering the drift of the entire talk show and all the statements put together it cannot be said that the petitioner crossed the limits set out in the decision of this Court in Kedar Nath Singh judgment," the judgment stated. Hence, the Court said that both sedition and public mischief cannot be made out against Dua. "We are, therefore, of the firm view that the prosecution of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 124A and 505 (1) (b) of the IPC3 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," the Court concluded. On the charge of defamation under Section 501 IPC, the Court at the outset stated that cognizance of the same can be taken only on a complaint made by aggrieved person and not third party. Even otherwise, there is nothing defamatory in the statements attributed to Dua, the Court ruled quashing the charge under the said provision too. Regarding the charge under Section 268 IPC, the Court observed that provision is nothing but the definition of 'Public Nuisance' and is not a penal provision in itself which prescribes any punishment. It was also not the case of the respondent that any penal provision involving element of 'Public Nuisance' was attracted in the instant case.The said charge was also, therefore, quashed by the Court. .The Delhi police had also registered an FIR against Dua on June 4 for his March 30 video. That FIR was, however, stayed by the Delhi high court on June 10..[Read Judgment]