Why The SC’s Verdict On Vinod Dua’s Case May Not Guarantee Sufficient Protection To Journalists

WHAT WAS THE CASE ABOUT

• Padma Shri Awardee Vinod Dua had been charged with Sedition.
• This was due to comments made against the Government on his YouTube show last year.
• The FIR filed against Dua accused him of Sedition, Public Nuisance and Public Mischief.
• Dua had sought quashing of the FIR and claimed exemplary damages for harassment.
• He had also seeked direction from the Apex Court that FIRs against journalists with at least 10 years standing cannot be filed unless permitted by a committee constituted by the Chief Justice of the High Court, the Opposition Leader and the Home Minister of the State.

WHAT DID THE COURT SAY

• The judgements were given by Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Vineet Saran.
• It was decided that prosecuting Dua for Sedition would be unjust.
• Such a prosecution would be violative of Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution.
• The Bench used the verdict in Kedar Nath Singh V. State of Bihar to reiterate that only activities that create or intend to create public disorder by incitement of violence can be penalised.
• It was stated that a citizen has a right to criticize and comment upon the measures taken by the Government as long as it does not incite violence.
• The Court refused to grant the plea for ‘not filing FIR against journalists who have 10 years of standing’.
• This was because such a move was reserved for the Legislature.

WHY WILL THIS NOT GRANT FULL PROTECTION

• It fails to deter authorities from misusing the law.
• The definition of ‘intention to create or incite public disorder’ is very vague and was not specified in the judgement.
• Such a vague definition can be taken advantage of by the Executive.
• Moreover, ‘public order’ is a term that is not well defined in Article 19 (2).
• The Bench also did not take into account the significance of the case of The Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh vs Dr.Ram Manohar Lohia.
• The case defined the extent of ‘public order’ and could have been used to narrow down the definition of ‘tendency to create public disorder’.
• This could have prevented the misuse of authority and avoided pressing charges against journalists for frivolous reasons.
• Hence this judgement does not grant complete immunity to journalists.

What do you think about the Court’s decision? Share your view on this through the comments!