Vinod Dua Sedition Case: While quashing the sedition case against senior journalist Vinod Dua, the Supreme Court referred to the Kedarnath vs State of Bihar case (1962). That decision of the five-member bench becomes the shield of every journalist in such cases.
New Delhi
The Supreme Court on Thursday quashed the sedition case against senior journalist Vinod Dua. Dua was booked for sedition in Shimla, Himachal Pradesh for some comments on Modi government in his YouTube channel. He appealed against it in the highest court of the country, hearing which the court quashed the FIR and proceedings. The court acquitted Dua by referring to the 1962 Kedarnath vs State of Bihar case and said that every journalist would be protected as per Kedar Nath Singh’s decision. Know what is the decision of the Supreme Court of 1962 giving protection to journalists and who has not been considered by the court to be treason.
Kedarnath vs State of Bihar: ‘Comment on government is not sedition’
In 1962, the Supreme Court gave an important ruling in Kedarnath vs State of Bihar. The court had said that criticizing the government or commenting on the administration does not constitute a case of sedition. A case of sedition will be made only if any statement is such that there is an intention to spread violence or there is an element of increasing violence.
Questions have been raised every now and then on imposing sedition
The sedition case has been in the midst of controversies from the very beginning. Five years ago, an application was filed in the Supreme Court and the sedition law was questioned. It was then alleged in the Supreme Court that the government was misusing the law related to sedition. The petitioner had then said that despite the Constitutional Bench giving order in the sedition case, its law is being misused. In the application filed by CommonCause in the Supreme Court, it was said that the order given by the Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath vs State of Bihar, 1962, should be followed and the government should be directed in this regard.
Farooq Abdullah Case: ‘Keeping aside from government is not sedition’
Recently, on March 3, the case of former Jammu and Kashmir CM Farooq Abdullah came in the Supreme Court. Then the Supreme Court had said that keeping a separate opinion from the government is not sedition. The Supreme Court made the above remarks while dismissing the petition filed against him in connection with the statement of former Jammu and Kashmir CM Farooq Abdullah on Article 370. It was said in the petition that the statement made by Farooq Abdullah to restore 370 is sedition and action should be taken against him. During the hearing of the matter on 3 March, the Supreme Court had said that keeping and expressing opinion different from the opinion of the government does not constitute sedition. Rejecting the petitioner’s application, the court also imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on him.
Former Justice Lokur also expressed concern
At the same time, on 14 September 2020, former Supreme Court Justice Madan B Lokur had said that a law like sedition is being used to curb the freedom of expression, which is a matter of concern. Lokur had said this in a program organized on the topic of Freedom of Speech and Judiciary. In the matter of expression of opinion, the matter of putting journalists in jail and said that in the case of expression of opinion, speculation is being made and seen in the wrong context which is a matter of concern.
1995 Balwant Singh vs State of Punjab Case: ‘Sloganing is not sedition’
In 1995, in the Balwant Singh vs State of Punjab case, the Supreme Court held that sloganeering alone cannot amount to sedition. If someone raises slogans in a casual way, it will not be considered as sedition. In the said case, two government employees had raised slogans against the country. The Supreme Court said that the mere sloganeering does not create a threat to the country. Sedition will happen only when sloganeering is followed by rebellion and hatred spread in the community. In 1959, in the case of Ram Nandar vs UP Government, Allahabad High Court had declared Section-124A of the IPC as unconstitutional.
