<p>The Supreme Court on said every journalist "must" be granted protection from prosecution under penal provision of sedition unless her reports incited people to violence or showed tendency to create disorder or disturbance of public peace.</p>.<p>A bench presided over by Justice U U Lalit quashed an FIR lodged against senior journalist Vinod Dua by Shimla police on May 6 for his YouTube shows purportedly criticising Prime Minister Narendra Modi for Pulwama attack and Covid-19 lockdown in 2020.</p>.<p>Acting on Dua's plea, the top court said it was of "firm view" his prosecution for sedition and other offences would be "unjust" as he was within his "permissible limits" to criticise the government.</p>.<p>The court relied upon the landmark decision Kedar Nath Singh Versus State of Bihar (1962), which had then upheld validity of sedition provision but with riders.</p>.<p>"The principles culled out from the decision in Kedar Nath Singh show that 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," the court said.</p>.<p>"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 of the IPC must step in," the bench, also comprising Justice Vineet Saran, added.</p>.<p>The court thus said it must be clarified that every journalist will be entitled to protection in terms of Kedar Nath Singh case. </p>.<p>"Every prosecution must be in strict conformity with the scope and ambit of the Sections and completely in tune with the law laid down in Kedar Nath Singh," the bench said.</p>.<p>Going through the FIR lodged by a local BJP leader, the court noted that the statements that the Prime Minister had used deaths and terror attacks to garner votes "were not made" in the Talk Show. </p>.<p>With regard to Dua's show on lockdown in March, 2020, the court wondered, "The situation was definitely alarming and as a journalist if he showed some concern, could it be said that he committed offences as alleged."</p>.<p>Instead, the court said, the statements were made by Dua so that prevailing situation could be addressed quickly and efficiently.</p>.<p>The court, however, rejected Dua's plea to lay down that no FIR would be lodged against a journalist with 10 years experience unless approved by a committee at state level, saying, "this would amount to encroachment upon the field reserved for the legislature".</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on said every journalist "must" be granted protection from prosecution under penal provision of sedition unless her reports incited people to violence or showed tendency to create disorder or disturbance of public peace.</p>.<p>A bench presided over by Justice U U Lalit quashed an FIR lodged against senior journalist Vinod Dua by Shimla police on May 6 for his YouTube shows purportedly criticising Prime Minister Narendra Modi for Pulwama attack and Covid-19 lockdown in 2020.</p>.<p>Acting on Dua's plea, the top court said it was of "firm view" his prosecution for sedition and other offences would be "unjust" as he was within his "permissible limits" to criticise the government.</p>.<p>The court relied upon the landmark decision Kedar Nath Singh Versus State of Bihar (1962), which had then upheld validity of sedition provision but with riders.</p>.<p>"The principles culled out from the decision in Kedar Nath Singh show that 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," the court said.</p>.<p>"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 of the IPC must step in," the bench, also comprising Justice Vineet Saran, added.</p>.<p>The court thus said it must be clarified that every journalist will be entitled to protection in terms of Kedar Nath Singh case. </p>.<p>"Every prosecution must be in strict conformity with the scope and ambit of the Sections and completely in tune with the law laid down in Kedar Nath Singh," the bench said.</p>.<p>Going through the FIR lodged by a local BJP leader, the court noted that the statements that the Prime Minister had used deaths and terror attacks to garner votes "were not made" in the Talk Show. </p>.<p>With regard to Dua's show on lockdown in March, 2020, the court wondered, "The situation was definitely alarming and as a journalist if he showed some concern, could it be said that he committed offences as alleged."</p>.<p>Instead, the court said, the statements were made by Dua so that prevailing situation could be addressed quickly and efficiently.</p>.<p>The court, however, rejected Dua's plea to lay down that no FIR would be lodged against a journalist with 10 years experience unless approved by a committee at state level, saying, "this would amount to encroachment upon the field reserved for the legislature".</p>
