38.6c New Delhi, India, Thursday, April 18, 2024

“Journalists are entitled to protection against sedition,” says Supreme Court

By Celin Sunil      08 June, 2021 06:55 PM      0 Comments
“Journalists are entitled to protection against sedition,” says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday, June 03, 2021, quashed a sedition case registered against senior journalist and Padma Shri awardee Vinod Dua for his critical remarks against the Prime Minister and the Union government. The court affirmed that the “strong words” of disapproval against the ruling regime did not amount to sedition.

The court rejected the plea to direct State Governments to constitute committees to conduct preliminary inquiry before the FIRs are registered against senior journalists. The bench comprising of Justices UU Lalit and Vineet Saran observed that taking any measure as such would amount to encroachment upon the field reserved for the legislature.

However, the court clarified that, every journalist will be provided protection in terms of Kedar Nath Singh (1962) judgement, which said, “commenting in strong terms upon the measures or acts of government, or its agencies, so as to ameliorate the condition of the people or to secure the cancellation or alteration of those acts or measures by lawful means, that is to say, without exciting those feelings of enmity and disloyalty which imply excitement to public disorder or the use of violence is not sedition.”

The 1962 judgment said, Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (sedition) was intended only to punish subversion of a lawfully established government through violent means.

The bench stated that the petitioner is asking the constitution of a committee completely outside the scope of statutory framework. After referring to various other subsequent judgements, the court observed, “we are conscious that the directions issued in Jacob Mathew had received approval by a Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari, but those guidelines issued in Jacob Mathew stand on parameter which are completely distinguishable from the subsequent decisions of three Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India vs. State of Maharashtra and Others and in Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and Another vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice and others."

Share this article:

Leave a feedback about this

Trending Judiciary
Burden to prove dishonest damage to electric meter is for electricity theft, is on the prosecution: Delhi HC [Read Judgment]

Delhi High Court has held that the burden to prove that a person has ‘dishonestly’ damaged an electric meter to commit electricity theft is on the prosecution.

17 April, 2024 05:41 PM


Trending Legal Insiders
Two-day conference on April 13-14 on Technology and Dialogue between SC and Singapore

Explore AI's role in law at the India-Singapore Supreme Court conference on technology, enhancing judicial processes and access to justice, April 13-14, 2024.

12 April, 2024 06:16 PM
Trending Interview
LSJ Exclusive Interview: How BJP govt will free Chhattisgarh from “Naxal menace”? [Watch Video]

What is Chhattisgarh govt's plan for solving the Maoist/Naxalite problem in the state? Will there be a surgical strike against the Naxals or solution will be found via diplomatic channels? Read the Exclusive Interview with the Deputy Chief Minister Vijay Sharma.

13 April, 2024 12:33 PM
Trending Judiciary
SC rejects review of order to pay Rs 1.54 Cr compensation to ex Air Force staff for transfusion of HIV infected blood [Read Order]

SC denies review of Rs 1.54 Cr HIV compensation order to ex-Air Force staff for medical negligence.

13 April, 2024 03:13 PM
Trending Legal Insiders
CJI cautions against overlooking ethical legal consideration on use of AI in court adjudication

CJI D Y Chandrachud warns about ethical, legal challenges in AI use in courts, stressing need for thorough review.

13 April, 2024 07:08 PM


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email