VINOD DUA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 12 S.C.R. 1071 · Decided: 03-06-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 18 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1071
VINOD DUA
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 154 of 2020)
JUNE 03, 2021
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Constitution of India: Art. 32 – Quashing of FIR under – On
facts, FIR against petitioner-renowned journalist u/ss. 124-A, 505,
501, 268 for some statements made by him in his talk show on social
media about handling of the Covid Pandemic; and that the Prime
Minister has used deaths and terror attacks to garner votes – Act is
of instigating violence against the government and the Prime
Minister, and creating panic amongst the public and disturbing the
public peace by trying to spread false information – Petition u/Art.
32 by the petitioner for quashing of FIR and seeking directions for
protection of journalists – Held: All the offences set out in the FIR
not made out – Citizen has a right to criticize or comment upon the
measures undertaken by the Government and its functionaries, so
long as he does not incite people to violence against the Government
or with the intention of creating public disorder – ss. 124A and 505
comes into play only when the words or expressions have pernicious
tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of
law and order – Statements at best can be termed as expression of
disapprobation of actions of the Government and its functionaries
– They were not made with the intent to incite people or showed
tendency to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort
to violence – Statements attributed to petitioner that Prime Minister
used deaths and terror attack to garner votes not made in the Talk
Show –  Thus, prosecution of the petitioner for the offences
punishable u/ss. 124A and 505 (1)(b)  unjust and violative of its
rights guaranteed u/Art. 19(1)(a) – Furthermore, offences u/ss. 501
and 268 not made out, as also offences punishable u/ss. 52 and 54
of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and s.188 IPC – As regards,
prayer that no FIR be registered against a person belonging to
media with at least 10 years of standing unless cleared by the
Committee as suggested, the constitution of the Committee is  outside
[2021] 12 S.C.R. 1071
1071
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1072
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 12 S.C.R.
the scope of the statutory framework, and any relief granted in
terms thereof  would amount to encroachment upon the field reserved
for the legislature – Thus, FIR quashed, however, prayer for the
constitution of the Committee rejected – Separation of powers –
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.124-A, 505, 501, 268.
Penal Code, 1860: s. 124A – Sedition – Applicability of s.
124A, when – Explained in terms with the *Kedar Nath Singh vs.
State of Bihar’s case.
Partly allowing the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The FIR against the petitioner is quashed; but
the prayer that no FIR be registered against a person belonging
to media with at least 10 years of standing unless cleared by the
Committee as suggested, is rejected. [Para 68][1177-C-D]
1.2 The practice of directing that the High Court be
approached first even in cases of violation of fundamental rights,
is more of a self- imposed discipline by this Court; but in glaring
cases of deprivation of liberty, this Court has entertained petitions
under Article 32 of the Constitution. Apart from the fact that the
right claimed by the petitioner is one under Article 19 (1) (a) of
the Constitution, the second prayer made by the petitioner can
effectively be considered only in a writ petition. Going by the
nature of the second prayer, relegating the petitioner to file a
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, may not be
appropriate. Rather, the issue must ideally be settled by
this Court. Consequently, the preliminary objection raised by
the respondents is not accepted. [Paras 24-25][1106-G-H;
1107-D-F]
Romesh Thappar  v. The State of Madras [1950] SCR
594; Jagisha Arora vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another (2019) 6 SCC 619; Priya Prakash Varrier and
Others vs. State of Telangana and Another (2019) 12
SCC 432:[2018] 10 SCR 615; Amish Devgan vs. Union
of India and Others (2021) 1 SCC 1:2020 (12) JT 300
– referred to.
1.3 On facts, it has been established that the statements
attributed to the petitioner that the Prime Minister had used
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1073
deaths and terror attacks to garner votes or that the Prime
Minister had garnered votes through acts of terrorism, were not
made in the Talk Show. The true translation of the original episode
in Hindi, has been placed on record. No such ass

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.