Vinod Dua v. Union of India & Ors.
Background
Senior journalist Vinod Dua was booked in an FIR in Himachal Pradesh under Sections 124A (sedition), 268, 501 and 505 of the IPC over remarks made on his YouTube show "The Vinod Dua Show," where the complainant alleged Dua had falsely claimed the Prime Minister used "deaths and terror attacks" to garner votes and had criticised the government's Covid-19 preparedness. Dua approached the Supreme Court directly under Article 32, seeking to quash the FIR and also asking the Court to create a special screening committee (including a High Court judge, the leader of the opposition, and the state Home Minister) that would have to clear any FIR against journalists with at least ten years' standing before it could be registered.
Decision Breakdown
Applying the Constitution Bench's test from Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held that criticism of government action, however strong, does not amount to sedition under Section 124A unless it incites violence or public disorder, or has the tendency to do so: mere disapproval or criticism of government measures to combat Covid-19 was not sufficient. Finding the complaint and FIR did not disclose any such incitement by Dua, the Court quashed the FIR in its entirety. However, it rejected Dua's second prayer for a special pre-registration screening committee for journalists, holding that creating a new procedural safeguard outside the statutory framework would amount to judicial overreach into the legislature's domain, while nonetheless clarifying that every journalist is entitled to the protection recognised in Kedar Nath Singh when prosecuted under Sections 124A or 505.
Lesson Learnt
Journalistic criticism of the government, including harsh criticism of its pandemic response, is constitutionally protected speech and cannot by itself be prosecuted as sedition: the law requires proof of incitement to violence or public disorder, not mere disagreement with official policy.