Supreme Court stays action on 2 channels, to decide ambit of sedition law against media | India News
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday expressed concern at the regularity with which sedition charges were slapped against print and electronic media for publishing views critical of the establishment and said it would decide the ambit of the colonial-era provision in the Indian Penal Code keeping in view the media’s right to free speech and expression.
“We are of the view that the ambit and parameters of the provisions of Sections 124A, 153A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, would require interpretation, particularly in the context of the right of the electronic and print media to communicate news and information, even those that may be critical of the prevailing regime in any part of the nation,” a bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud, L N Rao and S R Bhat said.
The court’s resolve to more closely define the law on sedition will be widely welcomed given the perception that it can be a handy tool to silence dissent and political opponents and that the provisions should be invoked only in rare cases where there is a plot against the state or intent to harm national integrity.
This order came on petitions filed by Telugu TV channels TV5 and ABN challenging Andhra Pradesh police’s decision to suo motu lodge an FIR on May 14 under Sections 124A, 153A and 505 of IPC against them for broadcasting the views of YSRCP rebel MP Krishnam Raju, who was critical of chief minister Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy’s Covid-19 management policy. The court stayed any coercive action against the TV channels.
Raju was made the main accused in the FIR and arrested on May 14. He was granted bail by the SC later as Army Hospital medical reports indicated that he could have been subjected to custodial torture.
The TV channels, through advocates Vipin Nair and G Pramod Kumar, had also moved another set of petitions seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against AP police for violating the SC’s April 30 order asking the DGPs of states not to take coercive action against anyone who put up critical social media posts against the government relating to Covid-19 management.
The bench, after hearing senior advocates Shyam Divan and Sidharth Luthra, protected the two Telugu TV channels and their personnel from any coercive action by AP police on the basis of the FIR lodged against them for broadcasting Raju’s critical remarks against Reddy.
The petitioners accused AP police of violating the SC’s April 30 order, which said, “It is with deep distress that we note that individuals seeking help on such platforms have been targeted, by alleging that the information posted by them is false and has only been posted on social media to create panic, defame the administration or damage ‘national image’. We do not hesitate in saying that such targeting shall not be condoned, and the central government and state governments should ensure that they immediately cease any direct or indirect threats of prosecution and arrest to citizens who air grievances or those that are attempting to help fellow citizens receive medical aid.”
Issuing a contempt warning, the Justice Chandrachud-led bench had said, “If this does keep happening even after the current order, this court shall be constrained to use the powers available to it under its contempt jurisdiction. We also direct that all directors general of police shall ensure compliance down the ranks of the police forces within their jurisdictions.”
Listing the petitions for hearing after six weeks, the bench asked the AP government on Monday to file its response within four weeks. “Till the next date of listing, there shall be a stay on the respondents adopting any coercive proceedings against the two television channels which are the petitioners before the court, namely TV5 and ABN, as well as their personnel,” it said.
“We are of the view that the ambit and parameters of the provisions of Sections 124A, 153A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, would require interpretation, particularly in the context of the right of the electronic and print media to communicate news and information, even those that may be critical of the prevailing regime in any part of the nation,” a bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud, L N Rao and S R Bhat said.
The court’s resolve to more closely define the law on sedition will be widely welcomed given the perception that it can be a handy tool to silence dissent and political opponents and that the provisions should be invoked only in rare cases where there is a plot against the state or intent to harm national integrity.
This order came on petitions filed by Telugu TV channels TV5 and ABN challenging Andhra Pradesh police’s decision to suo motu lodge an FIR on May 14 under Sections 124A, 153A and 505 of IPC against them for broadcasting the views of YSRCP rebel MP Krishnam Raju, who was critical of chief minister Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy’s Covid-19 management policy. The court stayed any coercive action against the TV channels.
Raju was made the main accused in the FIR and arrested on May 14. He was granted bail by the SC later as Army Hospital medical reports indicated that he could have been subjected to custodial torture.
The TV channels, through advocates Vipin Nair and G Pramod Kumar, had also moved another set of petitions seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against AP police for violating the SC’s April 30 order asking the DGPs of states not to take coercive action against anyone who put up critical social media posts against the government relating to Covid-19 management.
The bench, after hearing senior advocates Shyam Divan and Sidharth Luthra, protected the two Telugu TV channels and their personnel from any coercive action by AP police on the basis of the FIR lodged against them for broadcasting Raju’s critical remarks against Reddy.
The petitioners accused AP police of violating the SC’s April 30 order, which said, “It is with deep distress that we note that individuals seeking help on such platforms have been targeted, by alleging that the information posted by them is false and has only been posted on social media to create panic, defame the administration or damage ‘national image’. We do not hesitate in saying that such targeting shall not be condoned, and the central government and state governments should ensure that they immediately cease any direct or indirect threats of prosecution and arrest to citizens who air grievances or those that are attempting to help fellow citizens receive medical aid.”
Issuing a contempt warning, the Justice Chandrachud-led bench had said, “If this does keep happening even after the current order, this court shall be constrained to use the powers available to it under its contempt jurisdiction. We also direct that all directors general of police shall ensure compliance down the ranks of the police forces within their jurisdictions.”
Listing the petitions for hearing after six weeks, the bench asked the AP government on Monday to file its response within four weeks. “Till the next date of listing, there shall be a stay on the respondents adopting any coercive proceedings against the two television channels which are the petitioners before the court, namely TV5 and ABN, as well as their personnel,” it said.
