# VINOD DUA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2021] 12 S.C.R. 1071
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2021-06-03
- **Bench:** Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/vinod-dua-v-union-of-india-ors-34789
- **Pages:** 107

## Headnote

Constitution of India: Art. 32 - Quashing of FIR under - On
facts, FIR against petitioner-renowned journalist u/ss. 124-A, 505,
501, 268 for some statements made by him in his talk show on social
media about handling of the Covid Pandemic; and that the Prime
Minister has used deaths and terror attacks to garner votes - Act is
of instigating violence against the government and the Prime
Minister, and creating panic amongst the public and disturbing the
public peace by trying to spread false information - Petition u/Art.
32 by the petitioner for quashing of FIR and seeking directions for
protection of journalists - Held: All the offences set out in the FIR
not made out - Citizen has a right to criticize or comment upon the
measures undertaken by the Government and its functionaries, so
long as he does not incite people to violence against the Government
or with the intention of creating public disorder - ss. 124A and 505
comes into play only when the words or expressions have pernicious
tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of
law and order - Statements at best can be termed as expression of
disapprobation of actions of the Government and its functionaries
- They were not made with the intent to incite people or showed
tendency to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort
to violence - Statements attributed to petitioner that Prime Minister
used deaths and terror attack to garner votes not made in the Talk
Show - Thus, prosecution of the petitioner for the offences
punishable u/ss. 124A and 505 (1)(b) unjust and violative of its
rights guaranteed u/Art. 19(1)(a) - Furthermore, offences u/ss. 501
and 268 not made out, as also offences punishable u/ss. 52 and 54
of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and s.188 IPC - As regards,
prayer that no FIR be registered against a person belonging to
media with at least 10 years of standing unless cleared by the
Committee as suggested, the constitution of the Committee is outside
[2021] 12 S.C.R. 1071
1071
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1072
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 12 S.C.R.
the scope of the statutory framework, and any relief granted in
terms thereof would amount to encroachment upon the field reserved
for the legislature - Thus, FIR quashed, however, prayer for the
constitution of the Committee rejected - Separation of powers -
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.124-A, 505, 501, 268.
Penal Code, 1860: s. 124A - Sedition - Applicability of s.
124A, when - Explained in terms with the *Kedar Nath Singh vs.
State of Bihar's case.
Partly allowing the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The FIR against the petitioner is quashed; but
the prayer that no FIR be registered against a person belonging
to media with at least 10 years of standing unless cleared by the
Committee as suggested, is rejected. [Para 68][1177-C-D]
1.2 The practice of directing that the High Court be
approached first even in cases of violation of fundamental rights,
is more of a self- imposed discipline by this Court; but in glaring
cases of deprivation of liberty, this Court has entertained petitions
under Article 32 of the Constitution. Apart from the fact that the
right claimed by the petitioner is one under Article 19 (1) (a) of
the Constitution, the second prayer made by the petitioner can
effectively be considered only in a writ petition. Going by the
nature of the second prayer, relegating the petitioner to file a
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, may not be
appropriate. Rather, the issue must ideally be settled by
this Court. Consequently, the preliminary objection raised by
the respondents is not accepted. [Paras 24-25][1106-G-H;
1107-D-F]
Romesh Thappar v. The State of Madras [1950] SCR
594; Jagisha Arora vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another (2019) 6 SCC 619; Priya Prakash Varrier and
Others vs. State of Telangana and Another (2019) 12
SCC 432:[2018] 10 SCR 615; Amish Devgan vs. Union
of India and Others (2021) 1 SCC 1:2020 (12) JT 300
- referred to.
1.3 On facts, it has been esta

## Text

_Characters 0–39,621 of 239,259. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39621 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1071
VINOD DUA
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 154 of 2020)
JUNE 03, 2021
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Constitution of India: Art. 32 - Quashing of FIR under - On
facts, FIR against petitioner-renowned journalist u/ss. 124-A, 505,
501, 268 for some statements made by him in his talk show on social
media about handling of the Covid Pandemic; and that the Prime
Minister has used deaths and terror attacks to garner votes - Act is
of instigating violence against the government and the Prime
Minister, and creating panic amongst the public and disturbing the
public peace by trying to spread false information - Petition u/Art.
32 by the petitioner for quashing of FIR and seeking directions for
protection of journalists - Held: All the offences set out in the FIR
not made out - Citizen has a right to criticize or comment upon the
measures undertaken by the Government and its functionaries, so
long as he does not incite people to violence against the Government
or with the intention of creating public disorder - ss. 124A and 505
comes into play only when the words or expressions have pernicious
tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of
law and order - Statements at best can be termed as expression of
disapprobation of actions of the Government and its functionaries
- They were not made with the intent to incite people or showed
tendency to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort
to violence - Statements attributed to petitioner that Prime Minister
used deaths and terror attack to garner votes not made in the Talk
Show - Thus, prosecution of the petitioner for the offences
punishable u/ss. 124A and 505 (1)(b) unjust and violative of its
rights guaranteed u/Art. 19(1)(a) - Furthermore, offences u/ss. 501
and 268 not made out, as also offences punishable u/ss. 52 and 54
of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and s.188 IPC - As regards,
prayer that no FIR be registered against a person belonging to
media with at least 10 years of standing unless cleared by the
Committee as suggested, the constitution of the Committee is outside
[2021] 12 S.C.R. 1071
1071
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1072
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 12 S.C.R.
the scope of the statutory framework, and any relief granted in
terms thereof would amount to encroachment upon the field reserved
for the legislature - Thus, FIR quashed, however, prayer for the
constitution of the Committee rejected - Separation of powers -
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.124-A, 505, 501, 268.
Penal Code, 1860: s. 124A - Sedition - Applicability of s.
124A, when - Explained in terms with the *Kedar Nath Singh vs.
State of Bihar's case.
Partly allowing the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The FIR against the petitioner is quashed; but
the prayer that no FIR be registered against a person belonging
to media with at least 10 years of standing unless cleared by the
Committee as suggested, is rejected. [Para 68][1177-C-D]
1.2 The practice of directing that the High Court be
approached first even in cases of violation of fundamental rights,
is more of a self- imposed discipline by this Court; but in glaring
cases of deprivation of liberty, this Court has entertained petitions
under Article 32 of the Constitution. Apart from the fact that the
right claimed by the petitioner is one under Article 19 (1) (a) of
the Constitution, the second prayer made by the petitioner can
effectively be considered only in a writ petition. Going by the
nature of the second prayer, relegating the petitioner to file a
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, may not be
appropriate. Rather, the issue must ideally be settled by
this Court. Consequently, the preliminary objection raised by
the respondents is not accepted. [Paras 24-25][1106-G-H;
1107-D-F]
Romesh Thappar v. The State of Madras [1950] SCR
594; Jagisha Arora vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another (2019) 6 SCC 619; Priya Prakash Varrier and
Others vs. State of Telangana and Another (2019) 12
SCC 432:[2018] 10 SCR 615; Amish Devgan vs. Union
of India and Others (2021) 1 SCC 1:2020 (12) JT 300
- referred to.
1.3 On facts, it has been established that the statements
attributed to the petitioner that the Prime Minister had used
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1073
deaths and terror attacks to garner votes or that the Prime
Minister had garnered votes through acts of terrorism, were not
made in the Talk Show. The true translation of the original episode
in Hindi, has been placed on record. No such assertions find place
in the true translation nor were any objections raised that the
translated version was in any way incorrect. The petitioner did
say that the air strikes by India on Balakot and attacks on
Pathankot and Pulwama were used as political events to garner
votes but no allegations were made against the Prime Minister
as was stated in the F.I.R. It is true that some of the portions of
the Talk Show do assert that there were not enough testing
facilities; that there was no information as to the quantum of PPE
kits/ suits, N95 masks, and masks of three ply that were available
in the country; that the respiratory devices and sanitizers were
being exported till 24th March (2020) instead of keeping them
for use in the country; that the supply chains got disrupted due
to blockage of roads; and that the migrant workers was a huge
issue. It was also asserted that with supply chains being closed,
some people had feared food riots, which had not happened in
the country. [Para 27][1108-C-G]
1.4 Leaving aside two incorrect statements made in the
FIR, the following assertions from the talk show are relied upon
to state that the offences as alleged are made out:
(i) The statement in the talk show are that it is common
knowledge that the countries all over the world found themselves
wanting in terms of infrastructure and facilities to cope up with
the effects of Covid-19 Pandemic. Considering the size of the
population of this country, the testing facilities to gauge and check
the spread and effect of the Pandemic, at least in the initial stages
of the surge, were not exactly adequate. If in that light, the
petitioner made any comments about testing facilities or PPE
Suits, N-95 masks and masks of 3 ply, those comments in first
two statements, cannot be anything other than appraisal of the
situation then obtaining. It was not even the case of the
respondents that these two statements were factually incorrect.
(ii) The submission of the respondents was that the ban on
export of ventilator and sanitizers was imposed on 19.03.2020
VINOD DUA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1074
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 12 S.C.R.
and the said statement was therefore not quite correct. It was
also submitted that the petitioner produced no evidence of actual
exports before the ban was imposed on 19.03.2020 and that there
were no exports immediately proceeding the imposition of ban.
(iii) The effect of Nation-wide lockdown which came into
effect from the midnight intervening 24.03.2020 and 25.03.2020,
according to the petitioner, resulted in disruption of supply chains
due to blockage of roads. It was the submission of the respondents
that by Consolidated Guidelines issued on 28.03.2020 (which was
stated to be an order under Section 188 IPC), adequate steps
were directed to be taken to ensure that there was no disruption
in supply of essential goods. It must be stated that the fourth
statement did acknowledge that the transportation of essential
goods was being allowed and, in that sense, it was more or less
correct depiction of the state of affairs then prevailing.
(iv) It was submitted that statements regarding food riot
not only gave factually incorrect information but amounted to incite
the general public and that it was because of such incorrect
information, the movement of migrant workers had begun. On
the other hand, reliance was placed by the petitioner on the
interview of former Chief Statistician reported on 28.03.2020 that
if food requirements of migrant workers were not fulfilled amid
countrywide lockdown, food riots could be a real possibility. It
was submitted that by the time the talk show was uploaded, the
movement of migrant workers had already started and was at the
peak. [Paras 38 and 39][1144-F-G; 1145-F-H; 1146-A-F]
1.5 What was prevailing on 30.03.2020 was therefore clear
and migrant workers in huge numbers were moving towards their
hometowns/villages. In the circumstances, there would naturally
be some apprehension about the shelter and food to be provided
to them en-route. The former Chief Statistician had expressed a
possibility with the intent to invite the attention of the authorities.
If the petitioner in his talk show uploaded on 30.03.2020, that is
even before the matter was taken up by this Court, made certain
assertions in his statements, he would be within his rights to say
that as a Journalist he was touching upon issues of great concern
so that adequate attention could be bestowed to the prevailing
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1075
problems. It cannot be said that the petitioner was spreading any
false information or rumours. It is not the case of the respondents
that the migrant workers started moving towards their
hometowns/villages purely as a result of the statements made by
the petitioner. Such movement of migrant workers had begun
long before. In the circumstances, these statements can neither
be taken to be an attempt to incite migrant workers to start
moving towards their hometowns or villages nor can it be taken
to be an incitement for causing any food riots. The situation was
definitely alarming around 30.03.2020 and as a journalist if the
petitioner showed some concern, could it be said that he
committed offences as alleged. [Para 42][1149-A-E]
1.6 A citizen has a right to criticize or comment upon the
measures undertaken by the Government and its functionaries,
so long as he does not incite people to violence against the
Government established by law or with the intention of creating
public disorder; and that it is only when the words or expressions
have pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder
or disturbance of law and order that Sections 124A and 505 IPC
must step in. The statements by the petitioner, if read in the light
of the principles emanating from the decision in Kedar Nath
Singh's case and against the backdrop of the circumstances when
they were made, can at best be termed as expression of
disapprobation of actions of the Government and its functionaries
so that prevailing situation could be addressed quickly and
efficiently. They were certainly not made with the intent to incite
people or showed tendency to create disorder or disturbance of
public peace by resort to violence. The petitioner was within the
permissible limits laid down in the decision of this Court in Kedar
Nath Singh's case. It may be that certain factual details regarding
the date when the ban came into effect were not completely
correct. However, considering the drift of the entire talk show
and all the statements put together it cannot be said that the
petitioner crossed the limits set out in the decision of this Court
in Kedar Nath Singh's case. Thus, the prosecution of the petitioner
for the offences punishable under Sections 124A and 505 (1) (b)
IPC would be unjust. Those offences, going by the allegations in
the FIR and other attending circumstances, are not made out at
VINOD DUA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1076
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 12 S.C.R.
all and any prosecution in respect thereof would be violative of
the rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of
the Constitution. [Para 43, 44][1149-E-H; 1150-A-D]
*Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar (1962) Supp. 2
SCR 769 - followed.
1.7 The other offending provision referred to in the FIR is
Section 501 IPC which is printing or engraving a matter which is
defamatory to any person. As a matter of fact, the cognizance
with respect to an offence punishable under Chapter XXI IPC
(Section 501 IPC is part of said Chapter) can be taken by a Court
only upon a complaint made by the person aggrieved. Without
going into such technicalities, there is nothing defamatory in the
statements made by the petitioner. Further, the statements of
the petitioner would be covered by the second and third
exceptions to Section 499 IPC. Thus, the instant proceedings, in
so far as Section 501 IPC is concerned, also deserve to be
quashed. [Para 45][1150-D-G]
Jawaharlal Darda and Others vs. Manoharrao
Ganpatrao Kapsikar and Another (1998) 4 SCC 112;
Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande and Others vs. Uttam
and Another (1999) 3 SCC 134 : [1999] 1 SCR 580;
Vivek Goenka and Others vs. Y.R. Patil (2000) 9 SCC
87; S. Khushboo vs. Kanniammal and Another (2010)
5 SCC 600:[2010] 5 SCR 322 - relied on.
1.8 The other provision referred to in the FIR was s. 268
IPC which is nothing but the definition of "Public Nuisance" and
is not a penal provision in itself which prescribes any punishment.
It was also not the case of the respondent that any penal provision
involving element of "Public Nuisance" was attracted in the
instant case. Thus, all the offences set out in the FIR are not
made out at all. [Paras 46, 47][1150-G; 1151-A-B]
1.9 As regard to the offences which were not spelt out in
the FIR, it was contended by the respondents that in addition to
the offences specifically set out in the FIR, the petitioner would
also be guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 52 and
54 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Section 188 IPC.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1077
According to the respondents, the statements made by the
petitioner during the Talk Show amounted to circulating a false
alarm and would therefore be covered by Section 54 of the
Disaster Management Act, 2005; and that the petitioner would
also be guilty of having violated communications dated 24.3.2020
and 28.3.2020 and thereby committed offences under Section 188
IPC. The technical issue need not be gone into whether the
initiation of the proceedings in respect of the offences punishable
under DM Act and/or under Section 188 IPC could only be after
an appropriate complaint would be made in writing as submitted
by the petitioner, as none of these offences as submitted by the
respondents get attracted in the instant matter. The statements
made by the petitioner were within the limits prescribed by the
decision of this Court in Kedar Nath Singh's case and that the
statements were without any intent to incite people for creating
public disorder. It was not even suggested that as a result of
statements made by the petitioner any situation of panic had
resulted in any part of the country. In the circumstances, without
going into the technicalities whether the initiation of the
proceedings could only be through a complaint filed in conformity
with Section 60 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 or Section
195 of the Code, the provisions of the Disaster Management
Act, 2005 or Section 188 IPC are not attracted at all. [Paras 48,
51, 52][1151-B-D; 1152-C-D; 1153-A-C]
*Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar (1962) Supp. 2
SCR 769 - followed.
1.10 The second prayer made in the Writ Petition is asking
for the constitution of the Committee completely outside the
scope of the statutory framework. Similar such exercise of
directing constitution of a Committee was found inconsistent with
the statutory framework in the decisions discussed. The directions
issued in Jacob Mathew's case had received approval by a
Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari's case, but those guidelines
issued in Jacob Mathew's case 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
VINOD DUA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1078
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 12 S.C.R.
and Others. Any relief granted in terms of second prayer would
certainly amount to encroachment upon the field reserved for
the legislature. Therefore, the prayer is rejected and the Writ
Petition is dismissed to that extent. It must however be clarified
that every Journalist would be entitled to protection in terms of
Kedar Nath Singh's case, as every prosecution under Sections
124A and 505 IPC must be in strict conformity with the scope
and ambit of said Sections as explained in, and completely in tune
with the law laid down in Kedar Nath Singh's case. [Paras 66,
67][1176-F-H; 1177-A-C]
Jacob Mathew's case v. State of Punjab and Another
(2005) 6 SCC 1:[2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 307; Lalita
Kumari's case v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and
Others (2014) 2 SCC 1:[2013] 14 SCR 713; Arnab
Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India and Others (2020)
14 SCC 12:[2020] (8) SCR 222; Arnab Ranjan
Goswami vs. Union of India and Others (2020) 14 SCC
51; State of H.P. vs. Pirthi Chand and Another (1996) 2
SCC 37:[1995] 6 Suppl. SCR 29; State of UP vs. OP
Sharma (1996) 7 SCC 705:[1996] 2 SCR 236; Vijay
Shekhar and Another vs. Union of India and Others
(2004) 4 SCC 666; Rini Johar and Another vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and Others (2016) 11 SCC 703:[2016]
5 SCR 579; Monica Kumar and Another vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Others (2017) 16 SCC 169:[2017]
8 SCR 550; Laxmibai Chandaragi B. and Another vs.
State of Karnataka and Others (2021) 3 SCC 360; Ramji
Lal Modi vs. State of U.P AIR (1957) SC 620:[1957]
SCR 860; Daryao and others v. The State of U.P. and
others [1962] 1 SCR 574; Union of India vs. Paul
Manickam and Another (2003) 8 SCC 342:[2003] 4
Suppl. SCR 618; Kedar Nath Singh's case v. State of
Bihar Bangobashi case (Queen Empress v. Jogendra
Chunder Bose (1892) I.L.R. 19 Cal. 35; Queen-Empress
v. Balgangaddhar Tilak (1898) I.L.R. 22 Bom. 112;
Balgangadhar Tilak vs. Queen Express, (1897) L.R.
25 I.A.I.; Niharendu Dutt Majumdar v. The King
Emperor (1942) F.C.R. 38; King Emperor vs., Sadashiv
Narayan Bhalerao
74 IA 89;
Indian Express
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1079
Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. & Ors. vs. Union of
India & Ors (1985) 1 SCC 641:[1985] 2 SCR 287;
S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram & Ors. 1989 (2) SCC
574:[1989] 2 SCR 204; The Superintendent, Central
Prison, Fatehgarh and another v. Dr. Ram Manohar
Lohia AIR 1960 SC 633:[1960] SCR 821; State of
Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others (1992)
Suppl 1 SCC 335:[1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259; Manzar
Sayeed Khan vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
(2007) 5 SCC 1:[2007] 4 SCR 907; Patricia Mukhim
vs. State of Meghalaya and Others 2021 SCC OnLine
SC 258; Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab AIR 1962 SC
1206:[1962] Suppl. SCR 812; C. Muniappan and
Others v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 9 SCC 567:[2010]
10 SCR 262; P. Sirajuddin's Etc. vs. State of Madras,
Etc. (1970) 1 SCC 595:[1970] 3 SCR 931; Union of
India v. State of Maharashtra and others (2020) 4 SCC
761:[2019] 12 SCR 1125; Social Action Forum For
Manav Adhikar and another v. Union of India, Ministry
of Law and Justice and others (2018) 10 SCC
443:[2018] 12 SCR 19; Rajesh Sharma's and others v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2018) 10 SCC
472:[2017] 9 SCR 529; Dr. Subhash Kashinath
Mahajan's v. State of Maharashtra and another (2018)
6 SCC 454: [2018] 4 SCR 877 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 307
referred to
Para 10
[2013] 14 SCR 713
referred to
Para 10
(2020) 14 SCC 12
referred to
Para 18
(2021) 1 SCC 1
referred to
Para 19
[1995] 6 Suppl. SCR 29
referred to
Para 19
[1996] 2 SCR 236
referred to
Para 19
(2004) 4 SCC 666
referred to
Para 19
[2016] 5 SCR 579
referred to
Para 19
[2017] 8 SCR 550
referred to
Para 19
VINOD DUA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1080
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 12 S.C.R.
[2018] 10 SCR 615
referred to
Para 19
(2021) 3 SCC 360
referred to
Para 19
[2003] 4 Suppl. SCR 618
referred to
Para 20
[1950] SCR 594
referred to
Para 21
[1962] 1 SCR 574
referred to
Para 22
(2019) 6 SCC 619
referred to
Para 23
[2003] 4 Suppl. SCR 618
referred to
Para 24
(1892) I.L.R. 19 Cal. 35
referred to
Para 28.2
(1898) I.L.R. 22 Bom. 112
referred to
Para 28.2
(1942) F.C.R. 38
referred to
Para 28.4
[1985] 2 SCR 287
referred to
Para 34a
[1989] 2 SCR 204
referred to
Para 34 B
[1960] SCR 821
referred to
Para 35
[1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259
referred to
Para 36
[2007] 4 SCR 907
referred to
Para (36 a)
(1962) Supp. 2 SCR 769
followed
 Para 43, 51, 67
(1998) 4 SCC 112
relied on
Para 45
[1999] 1 SCR 580
relied on
Para 45
(2000) 9 SCC 87
relied on
Para 45
[2010] 5 SCR 322
relied on
Para 45
[1962] Suppl. SCR 812
referred to
Para 49
[2010] 10 SCR 262
referred to
Para 49
[1970] 3 SCR 931
referred to
Para 59
[2019] 12 SCR 1125
referred to
Para 60
[2018] 12 SCR 19
referred to
Para 60
[2017] 9 SCR 529
referred to
 Para 61
[2018] 4 SCR 877
referred to
 Para 63
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1081
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Crl.)
No. 154 of 2020.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Varun Singh, Nitin Saluja, Ms. Deepeika
Kalia, Kapish Seth, Akshay Dev, Ms. Deepti Arya, Rishabh Rana,
Mritunjay Singh, Satwik Mishra, Advs. for the Petitioner.
Tushar Mehta, SG., S.V. Raju, ASG., Vikas Mahajan, AAG.,
Mahesh Jethmalani, Vinay Navare, Sr. Advs., B.V. Balaram Das, Ms.
Kanu Agrawal, Vinod Sharma, Neeraj, Ms. Siya Chaudhary, Ravi Sharma,
Satya Ranjan Swain, Shoumendu Mukherjee, Vijay Joshi, Himanshu
Pathak, Ms. Priya Mishra, Ms. Damini Garg, Ms. Vandana Deewan,
Surender Kumar Gupta, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India prays
for following principal reliefs:-
"a.
Quash FIR No.0053 dated 06.05.2020
registered at Police Station Kumarsain, District
Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
 b.
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."
2. FIR No.0053 dated 06.05.2020 was registered pursuant to
Complaint made by respondent No.3 herein to the following effect:-
"On 30th March, 2020, Mr. Vinod Dua, in his show namely The
Vinod Dua Show on YouTube, has made unfounded and bizarre
allegations (details of particular moments are provided below) by
stating following facts at 5 minutes and 9 seconds of the video, he
has stated that Narendra Modi has used deaths and terror attacks
to garner votes. At 5 minutes and 45 seconds of the video, he
VINOD DUA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1082
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 12 S.C.R.
claims that the government does not have enough testing facilities
and has made false statements about the availability of the Personal
Protective Kits (PPE) and has stated that there is no sufficient
information on those. Further, he also went on to state that
ventilators and sanitizer exports were stopped only on 24th March
2020. A true copy of the video link is: https:/ /www.youtube.com/
watch?vvijFD_tgvv8. That the said allegations are false and the
claims are bizarre and unfounded. Mr. Vinod Dua has spread
false and malicious news by stating that the PM has garnered
votes through acts of terrorism. This directly amounts to inciting
violence amongst the citizens and will definitely disturb public
tranquillity. This is an act of instigating violence against the
government and the Prime Minister. He also creates panic amongst
the public and disturbs public peace by trying to spread false
information, such as, the government does not have enough testing
facilities which is absolutely false. The government has sufficient
facilities to curb the pandemic and have been taking all the
measures to control the pandemic. By making such false
statements, Mr. Vinod Dua spread fear amongst the people. This
video will only create a situation of unrest amongst the public
which will result in panic and people not obeying the lockdown to
come out and hoard essentials which is absolutely unnecessary.
Mr. Vinod Dua has circulated these rumours with the intent to
defeat the Lockdown by creating an impression that there is a
complete failure of the institution and it will become hard to survive
this lockdown, if not acted upon immediately. It is unfortunate
that during such a pandemic, which is of such a magnitude, instead
of helping out the citizens and encouraging them to stay at home,
the show and the host, Mr. Vinod Dua, is only interested in raising
his show's TRP and making it successful. The rumours were
spread with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or
alarm to the public or to any section of the public, whereby any
person may be induced to commit an offence against the state or
against the public tranquillity. Since the matter relates to Public
health, considering the gravity and seriousness of the matter, this
dishonest and fraudulent act of the Mr. Vinod Dua should be taken
with utmost seriousness. The aforesaid act of Mr. Vinod Dua is
an offence punishable under Sections 124-A, 268, 501 and 505 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Unless strict action is taken,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1083
it will result in unrest in public and go against public tranquillity.
Hence, you are requested to take strict appropriate legal action
against Mr. Vinod Dua and punish him accordingly."
3. The FIR dated 06.05.2020 thus pointedly referred to two
segments in the talk show uploaded on 30.03.2020 - one at 5 minutes 9
seconds and the other at 5 minutes 45 seconds and generally dealt with
the drift of the assertions made by the petitioner in said talk show to
submit that the actions on part of the petitioner amounted to offences
punishable under penal provisions referred to in the FIR. The transcript
of the relevant episode of the talk show has been placed on record and
the translation of the relevant portions is :-
"At present I am talking about the ongoing corona virus and
whatever has happened in its context - how was our preparedness,
when we were alerted and despite which why we were in slumber.
When I refer to WE then I refer to the government. I present a
small analysis on which a few things have been stated by P.
Chidambaram in an article in the Indian Express, some of this we
have also seen and you understand all of the rest very well. .....
Now, the national lockdown, desh bandhi, note bandhi, GST are
the three big events. Our work as media, we do not stoop, we are
not darbari, we are not from the government, our job is not to
denigrate, our job is not also to criticize, our job is to do critical
appraisal of government's work. We do not need anything from
the government or anyone's complaisance. Media has to do this
work but unfortunately most of the media is towing the line of the
government or their stoogas. They look for support in everything
to turn everything into an event of the Pradhan Sewak and to tout
that as a big success. In the case of attacks on India on Pathnakot
and Pulwama the same were used as political events to garner
votes, surgical strikes were also used as gain politically. The air
strikes by India on Balakot were also used as means of getting
votes. To seek votes by turning everything into an event has
become the hallmark of this government, this is our call of duty
and our dharma to present these before you, so we are saying
these.
Further, our biggest failure has been that we do not have enough
facilities to carry out testing. Undoubtedly, ICMR and Health
Ministry maintain that corona in India is still in 2nd stage and has
VINOD DUA v. UNION OF INDIA & Ors.
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1084
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 12 S.C.R.
not reached in 3rd stage when community transmission takes place.
At the present juncture India needs 7 lakh PPE suits, 6 lakh N95
masks and 8 crore masks of three ply. Till now we do not have
any information how many we have and how many will become
available by when. The ventilators needed in other countries and
in India, respiratory devices and sanitizers were being exported
till 24 March instead of keeping these for use in our country. Supply
chains got disrupted due to blockage of roads and now it is being
heard that transportation of essential goods has been allowed. It
is not difficult to imagine that when the supply chains have been
closed, when the shops are closed, some people had gone to the
extent of fearing food riots which have not happened in our country
could happen. Therefore the government is now taking steps
which should have been taken at least 15 days earlier. On 11
February, ICMR had forewarned, later Rahul Gandhi did the same
by writing a letter on 12 February and again 13 February but the
government kept sleeping.
Now, the migrant labour which is a huge issue, the people who
leave their distant villages to earn their livelihoods here, who are
the backbone of the cities, who help in running our lives, our drivers,
our daily wagers, construction workers, tailors, all those who do
small odd jobs and somehow send money back home. There are
certain states like Bihar which also run on money order economy
where it caused huge disruption and who started returning home.
When people started returning from Mumbai on 10 March, that
should have been a big signal for the government about the effect
the complete lockdown in the whole country can bring about but
no lessons were learnt. Besides, police did not get any instructions
about how to handle this, the face of brutality and inhumanity of
the police was seen and now the face of the police is also seen
while distributing food and also their face of shaming those not
following the lockdown. These steps could have been taken earlier
also because using force is not the only way of the police.
4. Certain factual developments that occurred after the registration
of the FIR were noted in the Order dated 14.06.2020 passed by this
Court as under:-
"A Notice for Appearance dated 11.06.2020 was issued by the
office of Station House Officer, Police Station Kumarsain, District
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1085
Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to the
following effect:
"A Case FIR No.53/2020 Dated 06.05.2020 U/s 124A, 268,
501, 505 IPC has been registered in Police Station Kumarsain,
Distt. Shimla, HP on the complaint of Sh. Ajay Shyam, Vill &
PO Kiara, Tehsil Theog, Distt. Shimla HP against (You) Mr.
Vinod Dua Journalist, HW News Network. In above said case
your presence is required for interrogation.
So you are therefore directed to join investigation at Police
Station Kumarsain on or before 13/06/2020 at 10 am sharp."
A response to the above notice was sent by the petitioner on
12.06.2020 stating inter alia:
"I have received your notice dated 11.06.2020 seeking my
physical presence for the interrogation of FIR dated 06.05.2020,
on 13.06.2020 before the police station in Kumarsain, Himachal
Pradesh.
I wish to bring to your notice as per Himachal Pradesh covid
guidelines dated 11.05.2020, any person coming from the red
zone is directed to be in institutional quarantine for a period of
14 days. Since I reside in New Delhi which is currently a red
zone, I would be forced to be in quarantine for a period of 14
days.
Further, I wish to bring to your kind notice that I am 66 plus
years old. Therefore, as per MOH guidelines, all citizens of 65
plus age are asked not to travel due to health safety risks.
Further I suffer from Thalassemia minor with Iron deficiency
anaemia, pancytopenia (low red & white blood cell and low
platelet count), chronic liver disease with portal hypertension
& splenomegaly, diabetes and hypothyroidism. I also have
oesophageal varices with a high risk of bleeding. Therefore
doctors have stated that stepping out of my house would be
life endangering. I am attaching my medical certificate
herewith.
Meanwhile, I would join the investigation through email or any
other online mechanism."
VINOD DUA v. UNION OF INDIA & Ors.
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1086
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 12 S.C.R.
While issuing notice in the petition, the Order dated 14.06.2020
recorded further: -
"Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that the Himachal Pradesh Police had
contacted the petitioner day before yesterday in connection with
the investigation in the crime referred to above.
Considering the circumstances on record, we deem it appropriate
to direct as under:
(a) Pending further orders, the petitioner shall not be arrested in
connection with the present crime;
(b) However, the petitioner in terms of the offer made by him in
his communication dated 12.06.2020, shall extend full cooperation
through Video Conferencing or Online mode; and
(c) The Himachal Pradesh Police shall be entitled to carry on the
investigation including interrogation of the petitioner at his residence
after giving him prior notice of 24 hours and complying with the
Social Distancing norms prescribed during Covid-19 Pandemic.
The affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the State shall indicate the
steps taken during investigation and a complete Status Report
shall be filed before the next date of hearing. The concerned
Investigating Officer shall remain personally present in case the
open Court hearing is resumed by this Court or shall be available
in case the proceedings are taken up through Video Conferencing
mode."
5. Some of the grounds raised in the instant writ petition relating
to the prayers quoted hereinabove are:
"A. Because the contents in the video is pure and simple critical
analysis by the Petitioner of the functioning of the Government
and cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be offences
under Sections 124-A, 268, 501, 505 of IPC.
B. Because the decisive ingredient for establishing the offence of
sedition under Section 124-A IPC is the doing of certain acts which
would bring to the Government established by law in India hatred
or contempt etc. which would incite violence or create public
disorder. In the present case, there is not even a suggestion that
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1087
the Petitioner did anything against the Government of India or
any other Government of the State.
R. Because seeking quashing of the FIR dated 06.05.2020 is part
prayer, the petitioner through this petition is also seeking guidelines
from this Hon'ble Court in respect of lodging of FIRs against
persons belonging to the media of a particular standing as done in
the case of medical professionals vide judgment in Jacob Mathew
v. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1 para 51, 52 affirmed by the
Constitution Bench Judgment in Lalita Kumari v. Government of
Uttar Pradesh and others (2014) 2 SCC 1 para 115."
6. The affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the State referred to
Sections 52 and 54 of the DM Act1 as under:
"At this juncture, it may be noticed that the entire world is passing
through an unprecedented international crises in the form of a
pandemic. India also is no exception. In case of a pandemic, any
false news necessarily have a tendency of creating panic and,
therefore, the Disaster Management Act provides for certain
offences and penalties. Sections 52 and 54 of the Disaster
Management Act read as under:-
"Section 52. Punishment for false claim.-
Whoever knowingly makes a claim which he knows or has
reason to believe to be false for obtaining any relief, assistance,
repair, reconstruction or other benefits consequent to disaster
from any officer of the Central Government, the State
Government, the National Authority, the State Authority or the
District Authority, shall, on conviction be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, and
also with fine.
Section 54. Punishment for false warning.-
Whoever makes or circulates a false alarm or warning as to
disaster or its severity or magnitude, leading to panic, shall on
conviction, be punishable with imprisonment which may extend
to one year or with fine."
Thereafter, the affidavit indicated following steps taken by the
Investigating machinery:
1 The Disaster Management Act, 2005
VINOD DUA v. UNION OF INDIA & Ors.
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1088
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 12 S.C.R.
"Having found that complaint disclosed cognizable offence, the
FIR was registered. In respectful submission of the respondent,
since a FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizance
offence, no interference may be warranted.
That after registration of FIR, on 07.05.2020 the complainant was
called in the Police Station but he did not appear as he was out of
station. On 08.05.2020 complainant joined the investigation in the
Police Station and produced one DVD containing telecast dated
30.03.2020 as referred in the FIR which was taken into possession
by the Investigating Officer through seizure memo and statement
of Sh. Ajay Shyam was recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
That on 11.05.2020, Investigating Officer visited Cyber Crime
Police Station from where Notice u/sec 91 Cr.P.C. was sent to
Google and YouTube through e-mail for obtaining information in
respect to URL of the channel and URL of the post."
7. The original complainant (Respondent No.3) stated in his
response as under:
"It is submitted that, on 30.03.2020, the petitioner in his show,
'The Vinod Dua Show' telecasted on You Tube in Episode No.255
made false allegations regarding preparedness for the pandemic
Covid-19 which were clearly in violation of Sections 124-A, 268,
501 and 505 IPC. The entire content/transcript of the episode
has been reproduced in the Writ Petition at pages 45 onwards at
Annexure A-2.
It is submitted that, on 21.04.2020, when the respondent was
surfing on the internet on his mobile that, he had the occasion to
watch the said alleged video of the petitioner. He strongly felt
that the contents of the video had a tendency to create disturbance
of public peace against the government established by law.
......
It is submitted that, in the present case, prima facie the offences
u/s 124-A, 268, 501 and 505 of the IPC are clearly made out and
more serious offences will emerge once the material supplied by
the answering respondent is investigated, and therefore, there is
no ground for quashing the present FIR. If the statements in the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1089
video are seen in its entirety, then the mala fide intention of the
petitioner is apparent and all is being said to incite people and
create disaffection and hatred in the minds of the people against
the Government of India and that too during these difficult times
of pandemic Covid-19."
Respondent No.3 then referred to the other episodes of talk show
of the petitioner uploaded on 02.03.2020, 31.03.2020, 01.04.2020 and
01.06.2020 to emphasize the alleged tendency on part of the petitioner
of making statements which were devoid of truth.
8. The Status Report placed for perusal of this Court in pursuance
of the order dated 14.06.2020, inter alia, gave details about HW News
owned by Theo Connect Private Ltd.
9. Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior
counsel submitted: -
A) The statements in the FIR that, "Hon'ble Prime Minister used
threats and terror acts to garner votes"; and "Prime Minister garnered
votes through act of terrorism" were factually incorrect. No such
assertions were made by the petitioner.
B) The basic allegations in the FIR were required to be seen in
the light of the law laid down by this Court in Kedar Nath Singh vs.
State of Bihar2 and subsequent cases.