The Supreme Court (SC) quashed the sedition case filed against journalist Vinod Dua in Himachal Pradesh.
In this context, it is essential to understand the provisions of Sedition law and the Supreme Court guidelines in Kedar Nath Singh ruling.
What is the recent case about?
Journalist Vinod Dua allegedly made remarks against Prime Minister Modi.
He also criticized the government’s handling of the migrant crisis during the 2020 lockdown.
BJP leader Ajay Shyam filed a case of sedition against Dua.
Section 124A of the IPC penalizes sedition.
It is punishable with either imprisonment ranging from 3 years to a lifetime, a fine, or both.
The Himachal Pradesh government argued in the Supreme Court against Dua.
It was said that Dua had attempted to spread misinformation and cause panic among the general public.
What has the court ruled?
The Supreme Court shielded Dua from arrest earlier, and now the case itself is quashed.
The SC held that his remarks constituted genuine criticism of the government.
So, it could not be labeled seditious.
In doing so, the court also reiterated the principles in the landmark case on sedition - Kedar Nath Singh v Union of India (1962).
[Both the state and the Centre argued against quashing the FIR.]
What was Dua's petition?
Dua had sought the court to pronounce certain directions to prevent misuse of the sedition law.
Suggestions - It applies to persons belonging to the media with at least 10 years’ standing.
FIRs against them should not be registered unless cleared by a committee.
The committee is to be constituted by every State Government.
It should comprise of the CJ of the High Court or a Judge designated by him, the leader of the Opposition and the Home Minister of the State.
Court's response - The Court did not agree to this.
It said that formulating such a committee would amount to encroachment of the legislature’s domain.
[But such screening committees have been appointed by courts for doctors and in domestic violence cases.]
The court however clarified that every Journalist would be entitled to protection in terms of Kedar Nath Singh ruling.
What are the Kedar Nath Singh guidelines?
In the 1962 Kedar Nath Singh case, the SC upheld the constitutional validity of the sedition law.
It also attempted to restrict its scope for misuse.
So, unless accompanied by an incitement or call for violence, criticism of the government cannot be labeled 'sedition'.
Seven principles in the Kedar Nath Singh ruling specify situations in which the charge of sedition cannot be applied.
What are the key principles in Kedar Nath Singh ruling?
The expression ‘the Government established by law,’ in the Sedition law, has to be distinguished from the persons engaged in carrying on the administration for the time being.
[‘Government established by law’ is the visible symbol of the State.]
Any acts within the meaning of Section 124-A which have the effect of subverting the Government established by law, or creating disaffection against it, would be within the penal statute.
Comments on Government actions, however strongly worded, would not be penal, without exciting those feelings which generate the inclination to cause public disorder by acts of violence.
Sedition is limited only to such activities that come within the ambit of the observations of the Federal Court.
This covers "activities involving incitement to violence or intention or tendency to create public disorder or cause disturbance of public peace.”
