Debunking Sedition: the peculiar case of Vinod Dua

By : Satyaki Paul

On June 3, 2021 the Supreme Court of India dismissed the case of sedition against Vinod Dua for passing some remarks at PM Modi and the central government’s management of migrant crisis during the 2020 lockdown.

A Supreme Court two-bench led by Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Vineet Saran observed that, it is the right of every journalist to criticize government measures with a view to alter them through legal procedures. And, the free speech for journalism should be protected from charges such as sedition. These remarks were made by the bench following the guidelines placed by Kedar Singh Verdict (1962).

In this judgement the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the sedition law (IPC-124A). However, the Kedar Singh verdict contains situations wherein the charge of sedition cannot be applied to an individual. These are:

1. The expression the Government established by law’ has to be distinguished from the persons for the time being engaged in carrying on the administration. ‘Government established by law’ is the visible symbol of the State. The very existence of the State will be in jeopardy if the Government established by law is subverted.
2. Any acts within the meaning of Section 124-A which have the effect of subverting the Government by bringing that Government into contempt or hatred, or creating disaffection against it, would be within the penal statute because the feeling of disloyalty to the Government established by law or enmity to it imports the idea of tendency to public disorder by the use of actual violence or incitement to violence.
3. Comments, 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, would not be penal.
4. 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.
5. The provisions of the Sections read as a whole, along with the explanations, make it reasonably clear that the sections aim at rendering penal only such activities as would be intended, or have a tendency, to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence.
6. It is only when the words, written or spoken, etc. which have the pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order that the law steps in to prevent such activities in the interest of public order.
7. We propose to limit its operation only to such activities as come within the ambit of the observations of the Federal Court, that is to say, activities involving incitement to violence or intention or tendency to create public disorder or cause disturbance of public peace.

In this context, the Editors Guild of India welcomed the decision and further they requested for abrogating the draconian law of 1860s formulated during the times ofJames Stephen to curtail the Wahabi movement. Even the United Kingdom had abolished the sedition law way back in the 2009, thus, this should be taken into consideration by the central government and our judiciary (even our other executive bodies such as the Law Commission of India). The author works as a Ph.D. Research Scholar at the Department of Anthropology, University of Calcutta, and the co-author of the book Anthropology For All (2021).