Menu

Date of Judgement: June 03,2021

Case Comment, Publications

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: (2 Judges) Mr. J. UU Lalit, J. Vineet Saran 

Case Type: Criminal Original Jurisdiction

Writ Petition no. 154 of 2020 

Petitioner: Vinod Dua

Respondent: Union of India & Ors.

Cases Referred: Kedar Nath Singh vs State Of Bihar on 20 January, 1962

Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab, 1962 Supp (2) SCR 812

C. Muniappan v. State of T.N., (2010) 9 SCC 567

Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1

Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1

Statute/Sections/Article involved: Indian Penal Code – Sections 124A,499,505(1)(b) ; Disaster Management Act,2005-Sections-52,54.

Facts of the case:-

  1.  Vinod Dua, a padmashree awardee journalist conducted a show named ‘The Vinod Dua Show on Youtube.
  2. On 30th march,2020 Mr Vinod Dua made certain remarks regarding the Indian Government’s management of the then ongoing pandemic of Covid-19.The principal statements on which the offences were alleged were:-
  • “our biggest failure has been that we do not have enough facilities to carry out testing”
  • “Till now we do not have any information how many PPE suits, N 95 masks and masks of three ply we have and how many will become available by when”
  • “The ventilator is needed in other countries and in India, respiratory devices and sanitisers were being exported till 24th March 2020 instead of keeping for use in our country.”
  • “That the roads suffered from blockage and it was in news that transportation of goods of essential characteristics was allowed..”
  • It is very reasonable to believe that the disruption of supply chains would have caused the closing of shops and some people might have reached to a certain point of hearing about riots for food could happen which had never happened before.
  • Mumbai saw huge emigration, and it was a signal enough for the government of the country that the complete lock down could surely bring about serious repercussions. Find
  1. FIR No.0053 was filed at a police station called Kumarsain in District Shimla in the state of Himachal Pradesh on 6th  May 2020.
  2. The FIR mentioned two specific time stamps of 5 mins. and 09 seconds and of 5 mins. and 45 seconds of the video published by Mr Vinod Dua on 30th March 2020.
  3. The FIR stated that Journalist Vinod Dua had circulated false and malicious news by commenting that the Prime Minister of the Nation had accumulated votes through actions of terrorism. It also said that this would directly amount to inciting violence among the citizens of the nation and would disturb Police tranquility.
  4. The FIR also alleged that Mr Vinod Dua had circulated such rumours with the malicious intention to cause apprehension among the public, whereby any person could be induced to perpetrate an offence against the state.
  5. The FIR stated that the act abovementioned actions of Mr. Vinod Dua were an offence which were subjected to punishment under certain  Sections which included 124-A,268,501 and 505 of The Indian Penal Code,1860(IPC).
  6.  Mr Vinod Dua filed a writ petition under article 32 of the Indian Constitution. His representative in the Court, Mr. Vikas Singh, a learned senior counsel principally prayed for following reliefs:-
  • “Quash FIR no.0053 dated 06.05.2020 registered at Police station Kumarsain, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
  • Direct that henceforth FIRs against persons belonging to the media with at least 10 years  standing be not registered unless cleared by a committee to be constituted by every state government, the composition of which should comprise of the Chief Justice of the High Court or a Judge designated by him, the Leader of the opposition and the Home Minister of the State.”

ISSUES RAISED :-

  • Whether the statements made by the petitioner mentioned earlier be termed as expression of disapprobation of actions of the government and its functionaries.
  • Whether the petitioner that is Mr Vinod Dua should be prosecuted for the offences which are provided with punishment under 124A and 505(1)B of the Indian Penal Code.
  • Weather the State made by the petitioner were defamatory according to section 501 of the Indian penal code.
  • Whether the section 268 of the Indian penal code, which defines public nuisance could be attracted in the instant case.
  • Whether the petitioner was guilty of the offence and  can be punished  under section 52 and 54 of the disaster management act.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER:-

  1. The learned counsel stated that certain statements made in the First Information Report, “Hon’ble Prime Minister used threats and terror acts to garner votes and Prime Minister gathered people’s votes through actions of terrorism” were incorrect on a factual basis because there were no such statements or assertion were made by the petitioner during his show.
  2. It was also stated that allegations in the FIR had the basic prerequisite to be seen according to the law laid down by the apex court in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar. If such course of action was adopted, section 124A of the IPC could not be invoked at all.
  3. The senior counsel also stated that the petitioner being a renowned journalist was entitled to a critical analysis of the functioning of the incumbent government and he did nothing more than that.
  4. Mr Singh also citing Jacob Mathew versus State of Punjab and Anr. submitted that the Supreme Court laid down certain guidelines in relation to Medical Professional’s Prosecution who are accused of  recklessness and carelessness while performing their specialized professional  duties. It was also explained by the apex court that a preliminary enquiry could legitimately be required in such categories of cases in the case of journalist as a category should be in consideration on comparable aspects.
  5. The learned counsel also stated that the petitioner was a reporter of some serious status as he had received several accolades and awards such as a Padmashree for excellence in journalism by the honourable President of India and the red ink lifetime achievement award by the Mumbai press club.

AREGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENTS:-

  1.  Tushar Mehta, the well learned solicitor general of India appearing on behalf of state of Himachal Pradesh made a submission in front of the court that the petition under article 32 of the Constitution of India should not be entertained by the court.
  2. He also stated that the claims made in the FIR are had to be presumed to be correct and the case at hand  to be allowed to be subjected to investigation.
  3. The solicitor general stated that the petitioner attempted to spread misinformation and hence caused panic in the perception of the general public and therefore such action would be covered under section 52 and section 54 of the disaster management act.
  4. Mr SV Raju, additional solicitor general of India submitted that the matter mentioned earlier should also come under section 188 with section 511 of the Indian penal code as statements made by Mr Vinod Dua had a nature of provoking to disobey the guidelines issued by the authorities.
  5. Mr Mahesh Jethmalani and Mr Vinay Navre mentioned  the aforementioned submissions representing  the respondent  and also said that it was a fake and inexact information and reporting that acted as a catalyst triggering the mass movement of workers from movement and the petitioner had definite intention to disrupt the public order.

RATIONALE:-

  • The Supreme Court laid special Infosys on the landmark case of Kedarnath Singh and examined the case at hand against the background of its circumstances. The court stated that the statements made by the petitioner could at best be called as expressions of strong disproval and acts of the government. The Apex court held that the statements were certainly not meet with any malicious intent to motivate people to create disorder or to disturb public peace by resorting to any violent. It was held that the petitioner that is Mr Vinod Dua was well within the permissible limits which were laid down by the apex court in Kedarnath Singh judgement and his judgements did not cross any limits. Therefore, the court held that to prosecute the petitioner for offences punishable under section 124A and 505(1)(b) of the Indian penal code would be unjustified and if the petitioner was to be prosecuted in such respect, it would be violative of his fundamental rights granted to him under article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
  • The court, considering the matter whether the statements were defamatory in nature or not elucidated on the fact that for such offences cognizance could only be taken by a court of law only when a complaint was made by aggrieved party.
  • The court also mentioned that the statements made by the petitioner during his programme could be we covered by the exceptions mentioned  to section 499 of the Indian penal code. The second exception states that ,“it is not defamation to express in good faith, any opinion whatever respect to the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions or respecting his character so far as his character appears in that conduct and no further”. The third exception states that ,“it is not defamation to express in good face any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person, touching any public question and respecting is corrected so far as his character appears in that conduct and no further”.
  • The Apex court of the country, relying on Daulat ram v. State of Punjab and also  C. Muniappan and Ors. V. State of Tamil Nadu held that the petitioner was not guilty and could not be charged of the offences punishable under section 52 and 54 of the Disaster management Act,2005  because no such cognizance was taken as no written complaint was made by the  public servant whose orders were violated as alleged by the respondents.
  • In conclusion, the court quashed the FIR no.0053 dated 6 May 2020, registered at police station at Kumarsain in district Shimla in the state of Himachal Pradesh against the petitioner. However, it rejected the pleading that no FIR could be registered against a person  involved in journalism with at least 10 years of standing unless cleared by the committee as suggested, citing the landmark judgements given by the Constitution bench in Lalitha Kumari and Jacob Mathew.

INFERENCES:-

  • The Kedar Nath Singh judgement should be given utmost importance as far as the cases of sedition and cases subject to section 124A of the Indian Penal code are concerned. This landmark judgement lays down certain limits and guidelines as to what counts as sedition and what can be treated mere criticism of the government not aimed at inciting violent action against the government.
  • This judgement so brings forth the importance of a complaint made by aggrieved person in order for the authorities to take cognizance of the offence of Defamation.