Summary
Vinod Dua sought quashing of an FIR over his March 2020 broadcast criticising the government's pandemic response, and a prior-clearance committee for FIRs against journalists of ten years' standing. Applying Kedar Nath Singh, the Court held that the broadcast was protected criticism, not incitement or speech tending to violent public disorder. The other alleged offences were also absent, so the FIR and consequential proceedings were quashed. The proposed committee was rejected as an impermissible addition to the statutory framework; every journalist nevertheless remained entitled to the protections explained in Kedar Nath Singh.
Issues
- Whether the broadcast disclosed sedition, public-mischief, defamation or the other asserted offences.
- Whether Article 32 relief was appropriate and a special pre-FIR committee could be constituted for experienced journalists.
Provisions considered
- Articles 19(1)(a) and 32, Constitution of IndiaProtected criticism and the nature of the wider writ prayer justified considering the petition; relegation to ordinary remedies was a practice of self-restraint, not an absolute jurisdictional bar. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 43, 44)
- Sections 124A and 505(1)(b), Indian Penal Code, 1860Applying Kedar Nath Singh's limiting construction, the statements disclosed disapproval of government action without the requisite incitement, intention or tendency towards violent public disorder. (¶¶ 28.6, 28.6.1, 28.8, 33, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 67)
- Section 501; Section 499, Second and Third Exceptions, Indian Penal Code, 1860The statements were not defamatory and were covered by the exceptions concerning good-faith views on public servants' public conduct and public questions. (¶ 45)
- Section 188, Indian Penal Code, 1860No violation of the relevant executive communications was shown; the subsequently issued Supreme Court direction could not criminalise the earlier broadcast. (¶¶ 48, 51(A), 52)
- Sections 52 and 54, Disaster Management Act, 2005False benefit-claim provisions did not concern these facts, and the broadcast did not establish a false disaster warning leading to panic. (¶¶ 6, 48, 51(B), 52)
Held
- The Court entertained the Article 32 petition in these circumstances, particularly because the national committee prayer called for consideration in writ jurisdiction. It did not hold that every request to quash an FIR must be entertained directly by the Supreme Court. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)
- The translated broadcast did not contain the specific assertions attributed to Dua in the FIR about the Prime Minister's use of terrorism. The remaining criticism had to be assessed as a whole and against the pandemic circumstances. (¶¶ 27, 38, 39, 42, 43)
- Criticism seeking effective governmental action remained within Kedar Nath Singh. Neither sedition nor section 505(1)(b) was made out; minor inaccuracy about the export-ban date did not alter the broadcast's overall character. (¶¶ 33, 39, 42, 43, 44)
- Defamation, a punishable public-nuisance offence, disobedience and disaster-related offences were not established. Questions about statutory complaint requirements were unnecessary to decide, and HW News ownership and possible journalistic-code violations were expressly left unexamined. (¶¶ 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53)
- The requested screening committee fell outside the statutory criminal-procedure framework and would encroach on the legislative field. The medical-negligence precedents did not justify that new restriction. Nonetheless, every journalist was entitled to the protection afforded by strict application of Kedar Nath Singh. (¶¶ 54, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68)
Result
Writ petition partly allowed: FIR No.0053 of 6 May 2020 at Kumarsain and consequential proceedings quashed; proposed prior-clearance committee for FIRs against journalists of ten years' standing refused.