Thread by @barandbench

VINOD DUA SEDITION CASE:

Supreme Court today is scheduled to take up for final hearing a petition filed by veteran journalist Vinod Dua seeking quashing of the Sedition case registered against him in Himachal Pradesh.

#SupremeCourt @VinodDua7 #Sedition

On June 14, #SupremeCourt had granted Dua protection from arrest but had refused to stay the FIR registered against Dua in Simla.

@VinodDua7

barandbench.com/news/litigatio…

In July, the Court sought details from Himachal Pradesh Police pertaining to investigation against Dua in a sealed cover.

#SupremeCourt

barandbench.com/news/litigatio…

The Court had then decided to hear the case for final disposal and had also observed that it would quash the FIR, if @VinodDua7's apprehensions were found to be true.

The case is listed to be heard by a Bench of Justices UU Lalit and Vineet Saran today.

#SupremeCourt #Sedition

Bench of Justice UU Lalit and Vineet Saran assembles.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta is before a special Bench in relation to #AGRcase so a request is made to defer the hearing.

Justice Lalit proposes Senior Counsel Vikas Singh may make his arguments for now and SG Mehta may argue later.

Justice Lalit: We will not conclude without hearing SG Mehta

Justice Lalit: This matter has been getting delayed for long also so let us begin the case, we will not conclude the case without hearing SG Mehta.

SG Mehta makes a brief appearance before the Bench, requests for his absence to be pardoned.

#SupremeCourt

Senior Counsel Vikas Singh, for Vinod Dua, begins making his submissions before the Bench.

Singh is taking the Court through the contents of the FIR registered against him in Simla, Himachal Pradesh.

@VinodDua7
#SupremeCourt #Sedition

The FIR is in relation to a broadcast by Dua on his YouTube show, the Vinod Dua show, dated March 31 and pertains to certain statements made by Dua.

#SupremeCourt #Sedition @VinodDua7

The FIR says that Dua's statements were of the nature intended to spread fear and panic and defeat the purpose of the lockdown, Singh tells the Court.

Dua is also alleged to have made false statements relating to PM Modi according to the FIR.

#SupremeCourt #Sedition

Singh says that the sections of the IPC invoked against Vinod Dua are not cognizable except S. 124A of IPC.

Singh is now reading the transcript of the broadcast show in question as admitted by the HP Police.

#SupremeCourt #Sedition

Singh: I'm only trying to show that there is complete distortion form what is said in the show than what is in the FIR + on both counts, actually said and alleged sedition, none of it is either under sedition or under 502 (IPC)

#SupremeCourt #Sedition @VinodDua7

Singh highlights the delay in filing of the FIR

Singh: The show was on March 31, FIR was on May 6. There was some delay from the complainant's side then one week delay by Police because they said they were doing preliminary inquiry

#SupremeCourt #Sedition @VinodDua7

Singh is now taking the Court through the reply filed by the Himachal Pradesh Police.

#SupremeCourt #Sedition @VinodDua7

Singh now reads the provisions of the Disaster Management Act which deals with the question of cognizance of offences under the Act. The Act provides that no Court shall take cognizance of the offence without a complaint by certain specific persons.

#SupremeCourt #Sedition

Singh: I do not understand why the FIR mentions the DM Act because there is nothing else they requires invoking of the DM Act.

#SupremeCourt #Sedition

Singh reads Section 505 of IPC to show that the offence alleged against Dua is not cognizable.

[Correction: an earlier tweet in the thread inadvertently mentions Section 502 instead of Section 505.]

#SupremeCourt #Sedition

Singh: I just have to show that Sections 124A and 505(2) of IPC are not made out and therefore FIR could not have been registered.

#SupremeCourt #Sedition @VinodDua7

Vikas Singh cites the Kedarnath Singh case of 1962

[AIR 1962 SC 955]

Read the judgment here:
indiankanoon.org/doc/111867/

@indiankanoon #SupremeCourt #Sedition @VinodDua7

Singh: In this case, the accused was convicted and when he came to the Supreme Court, he argued on the vires of the provision but did not argue that the case against him is not made out. So the SC laid down the law but confirmed his conviction.

#SupremeCourt

Singh reads out the relevant portion of the judgement where it is observed that criticism on political matters is itself not seditious.

#SupremeCourt #Sedition

Singh refers to the portion of the judgment which states that the government established by law has to be distinguished from the persons engaged in carrying on the administration.

#SupremeCourt #Sedition

Vikas Singh cites the judgment in Balwant Singh case concerning Sedition

[1995 3 SCC 214]

Read judgment here:
indiankanoon.org/doc/123425906/

@indiankanoon
#SupremeCourt #Sedition

Singh: This judgement is from the time when the Khalistan movement was as its peak.

Singh reads some excerpts

"we find it difficult to hold that upon the raising of such casual slogans, a couple of times without any other act whatsoever the charge of sedition can be founded."

Singh says that Kedarnath Singh was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2016.

Singh refers to the case 2016 15 SCC 269.

#SupremeCourt #Sedition

SC refers back to the Balwant Singh case.

Justice Lalit asks: Would it be a case for evidence (to assess if sloganeering led to violence or could lead to violence) or for quashing of FIR at initial stages?

#SupremeCourt #Sedition

Singh: Inciting leading to violence is a complete offence. In this case also, complaint was filed belatedly... His (Dua) show has a shelf life. Complainant said that he found the show while surfing the net and found that it could be inciteful.

#SupremeCourt #Sedition

Justice Lalit: You have another prayer?

Singh: That pertains to some guidelines. Our democravyis in true sense is in threat if our press is not allowed to function freely.

@VinodDua7 #SupremeCourt #Sedition

Singh now citing judgement on the aspect of Sections 505(2) of the IPC and 153A of the IPC.

Singh cites the case 1995 1 SCR 411.

#SupremeCourt #Sedition @VinodDua7

Singh reads out relevant portion from the Bilal Ahmad case [1997 (7) SCC 431] pertaining to necessity of involvement of at least two groups for inviting the offences under 153A and 505(2).

#SupremeCourt #Sedition @VinodDua7

Singh now cites the Supreme Court's judgement in the case Manzar Sayeed Khan vs Maharashtra [ 2007 (5) SCC 1] on the aspect of Section 153A and 505(2) and when they are cognizable

Read judgment here:
indiankanoon.org/doc/1028094/

Singh: This is affecting my fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression is being affected and we are praying for the Court to law down the law on this. In our A.19(1)(a), Press is not mentioned, it only says "citizens"

Singh: The Bill of Rights and the First amendment in the US mentions the Press and that is the difference between that and our A.19(1)(a). The constituent assembly debates had contemplated that citizenry would include the Press.

Justice Lalit says that first point (on whether the offence is made out and FIR is justified) is more crucial on the instant case, suggesting against the possibility of laying down guidelines

#SupremeCourt #Sedition

Justice Lalit: There are number of cases where guidelines were laid down when found fit... such as the Madhuri Patil guidelines, Vishaka guidelines. But the directions cannot be in the teeth of the existing statute.

Justice Lalit gives an example of the SC/ST judgement of 2018 which was rendered by a Bench of Justice AK Goel and Justice UU Lalit where certain directions were laid down, but were later set aside by a three-judge Bench.

#SupremeCourt #Sedition

Justice Lalit: When we lay down guidelines, the guidelines are also supposes to take further the legislative intent and cannot be in the teeth of the statute. We cannot issue directions where statute doesn't permit that

#SupremeCourt #Sedition

Singh argues that the guidelines sought are in line with the guidelines laid down in the Jacob Mathews case pertaining to registration of FIRs against doctors.

The Court is now being taken through decisions that highlight the importance of freedom of the press

Bench asks Singh for an estimate of the time he will require to finish his arguments.

Singh gives an estimate of about 2 hours.

SC asks Singh to conclude is an hour or so and focus on the points central to the case and take the route taken by the SC.

#Sedition

Justice Lalit: The idea is not to curtail the submissions but to expedite the hearing.

#SupremeCourt #Sedition

Hearing concludes for today.

#SupremeCourt #Sedition @VinodDua7