The TLDR: The popular journalist has been the target of multiple cases filed by BJP leaders and sympathisers. He was charged with sedition for an episode of his YouTube show which criticised the handling of the pandemic. The Supreme Court finally ruled in his favour—and of the freedom of the press. Here’s a quick explainer on the judgement.

Remind me about Dua

Vinod Dua is a widely respected and well-known Hindi journalist—and has a hugely popular YouTube show. Last summer, he was charged in multiple FIRs across the country as a surprising number of people decided to take great offense to his journalism—almost all at the same time. The most prominent among them were the following:

The Delhi case: In early June, he was charged with being a public nuisance, creating public mischief, creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes. All this based on a single complaint by BJP spokesperson Naveen Kumar who took objection to Dua’s commentary on the Delhi violence—on a YouTube episode that aired on March 11! The Delhi High court issued a stay on the FIR, “noting that the steps taken so far by the police in the case do not appear to be in consonance with the law and ‘do not inspire much confidence.’”

The Himachal case: Within days—yes, days—of the stay, the Himachal Pradesh police arrived on Dua’s doorstep. This time, he was charged with sedition and told to appear at the Kumarsain police station—where someone called Ajay Shyam Vill had filed the complaint. Don’t know where Kumarsain is? Likely neither did Dua. No one knows who Vill is either (though he claims to be a BJP leader). 

But the charge of sedition has stuck. This time, Dua was on the hook for a March 30, 2020 episode that focuses on the government’s handling of the pandemic. The Solicitor General and Vill’s lawyer variously argued that Dua: 

• Incited migrant workers to panic during the lockdown; 
• Claimed that “Narendra Modi has used deaths and terror attacks to garner votes;” 
• And created panic by “spreading false information that the government does not have enough testing facilities” for Covid-19. 

Ok, what happened at the Supreme Court

A two-judge bench threw out the FIR filed in Himachal Pradesh—which accused Vinod Dua of a variety of crimes apart from sedition. These included creating public mischief, being a public nuisance and printing defamatory materials. The Court ruled:

“A citizen has a right to criticise 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… In our view, the statements by the petitioner... can at best be termed as expression of disapprobation of actions of the government and its functionaries so that the prevailing situation could be addressed quickly and efficiently.”

Also this: The Court offered a rousing defense of free speech—and against the misuse of sedition laws:

“The time is long past when the mere criticism of governments was sufficient to constitute sedition. The right to utter honest and reasonable criticism is a source of strength to a community rather than a weakness.”

It also flagged the recent pattern where authorities deploy such laws to curb press freedoms: 

“[T]here is a recent trend against the media where State governments who do not find a particular telecast to be in sync with their political ideologies register FIRs against persons of the media primarily to harass them and to intimidate them so that they succumb to the line of the State or else face the music at the hands of the police.”

So this is a big deal, right?

Yes, in that the Court has firmly emphasized the law as set out by the Kedar Nath Singh verdict in 1962. Here’s some background on that landmark case.

The speech: Kedar Nath Singh was a member of the Forward Communist Party. In 1953, he made a speech in Bihar where he said:

“The people of India drove out the British from the country and elected these Congress goondas to the gaddi. As we drove out the British, we shall strike and drive out these Congress goondas as well. They have today established a rule of lathis, bullets in the country. We believe in revolution which will come, and in the flame of which, capitalists, zamindars and Congress leaders will be reduced to ashes, and on their ashes will be established a government of the poor and the downtrodden people of India.”

Singh was arrested and convicted on charges of sedition. He appealed the judgement in the Patna High Court (where it was rejected), and then moved the Supreme Court. 

The judgement: The Court’s ruling focused on the correct interpretation of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code—which covers sedition. The Court said that any act that has the effect of “subverting the Government by bringing that Government into contempt or hatred, or creating disaffection against it” constitutes sedition. But more importantly, it strictly limited its application:

• “[C]omments, however strongly worded, expressing disapprobation of actions of the Government, without exciting those feelings which generate the inclination to cause public disorder by acts of violence” is not sedition.
• “[C]ommenting 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” is not sedition. 
• To sum up: “A citizen has a right to say or write whatever he likes about the Government, or its measures, by way of criticism or comment, so long as he does not incite people to violence against the Government established by law or with the intention of creating public disorder.”

Irony alert: Despite all that, Singh’s appeal was rejected because his appeal challenged the constitutionality of Section 124A—which the Court upheld. Also: Singh later joined the Congress party in 1967 lol!

The bottomline: This judgement comes right on the heels of another Supreme Court ruling which protected two Andhra TV channels charged with sedition—calling it an attempt to “muzzle media freedom.” If this is an emerging pattern, then it’s very good news indeed—at a time when journalists are being routinely targeted by both state and union governments.

Reading list

The Telegraph has the most details on the Court ruling. Indian Express lays out the Kedar Nath verdict. This older Wire piece analyses the inconsistencies in Supreme Court rulings on FIRs filed against journalists. You can also watch the episode of Dua’s show that triggered the FIR. We did an explainer back in September on multiple campaigns to target prominent journalists.