2021 Supreme(SC) 284

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, VINEET SARAN, JJ.
VINOD DUA - PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - RESPONDENTS
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 154 of 2020
Decided on : 03-06-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Quashing Petition – In glaring cases of deprivation of liberty, Apex Court has entertained petitions under Article 32 of Constitution.
(2) Sedition – A citizen has right to say or write whatever he likes about Government, or its measures, by way of criticism or comment, so long as he does not incite people to violence against Government established by law or with intention of creating public disorder.
(3) Before a medical professional is prosecuted for negligence in criminal law, some threshold requirements ought to be satisfied, otherwise an unwarranted prosecution may not only result in great prejudice to concerned medical professional but would also not instill a sense of confidence in medical professionals for discharging their duties.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India – Article 32 – Quashing Petition – Maintainability – Practice of directing that High Court be approached first even in cases of violation of fundamental rights, is more of a self-imposed discipline by this Court – In glaring cases of deprivation of liberty, this Court has entertained petitions under Article 32 of Constitution. (Para 24)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 124A – Sedition – Any acts within meaning of Section 124-A which have effect of subverting Government by bringing that Government into contempt or hatred, or creating disaffection against it, would be within penal statute because feeling of disloyalty to Government established by law or enmity to it imports idea of tendency to public disorder by use of actual violence or incitement to violence – Disloyalty to Government established by law is not the same thing as commenting in strong terms upon measures or acts of Government, or its agencies, so as to ameliorate condition of people or to secure cancellation or alteration of those acts or measures by lawful means, without exciting those feelings of enmity and disloyalty which imply excitement to public disorder or use of violence – A citizen has right to say or write whatever he likes about Government, or its measures, by way of criticism or comment, so long as he does not incite people to violence against Government established by law or with intention of creating public disorder – It is only words, written or spoken, which have pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order that law steps in to prevent such activities in interest of public order. (Paras 28.6.1 and 43)

(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 188, 153, 124A and 503(b) – Disaster Management Act, 2005 – Sections 52 and 54 – Constitution of India – Articles 19(1)(a) and 32 – Quashing of FIR lodged against a media person – Allegation of airing derogatory show on YouTube against Prime Minister of India – In his Talk Show petitioner had asserted that Prime Minister used deaths and terror attacks to garner votes and that Prime Minister garnered votes through acts of terrorism – On facts, it has been established that statements attributed to petitioner that Prime Minister had used deaths and terror attacks to garner votes or that Prime Minister had garnered votes through acts of terrorism, were not made in Talk Show – Petitioner did say that air strikes by India on Balakot and attacks on Pathankot and Pulwama were used as political events to garner votes but no allegations were made against Prime Minister as was stated in F.I.R. – Statements by petitioner can at best be termed as expression of disapprobation of actions of Government and its functionaries so that prevailing situation could be addressed quickly and efficiently – They were certainly not made with intent to incite people or showed tendency to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence – Considering drift of entire talk show and all statements put together it cannot be said that petitioner crossed limits set out in decision of this Court in Kedar Nath Singh, (1962) Supp. 2 SCR 769 – Prosecution of petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 124A and 505 (1) (b) of IPC would be unjust – Those offences, going by allegations in FIR and other attending circumstances, are not made out at all and any prosecution in respect thereof would be violative of rights of petitioner guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution – There is nothing defamatory in statements made by petitioner – Instant proceedings, in so far as Section 501 IPC is concerned, also deserve to be quashed – All offences set out in FIR are not made out at all – Provisions of DM Act or Section 188 of IPC are not attracted at all – FIR quashed. (Paras 26, 37, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 52, )

(D) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 88 – Criminal medical negligence – Before a medical professional is prosecuted for negligence in criminal law, some threshold requirements ought to be satisfied, otherwise an unwarranted prosecution may not only result in great prejudice to concerned medical professional but would also not instill a sense of confidence in medical professionals for discharging their duties – Accepted norm – be it in form of CBI Manual or like instruments is to insist on a preliminary inquiry – Protection to a public servant is underlying principle under certain provisions like Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and as such there is some foundation in statutory provisions. (Paras 57 and 66)

Facts of the case:

Present petition under Article 32 of Constitution of India prays for quashing of FIR registered at Police Station Kumarsain, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh and further to direct that henceforth FIRs against persons belonging to the media with at least 10 years standing be not registered unless cleared by a committee to be constituted by every State Government, composition of which should comprise of the Chief Justice of the High Court or a Judge designated by him, the leader of the Opposition and the Home Minister of State.

Findings of Court:

Today, with establishment of Vigilance Cells in every Governmental Department or organisation, preliminary inquiries are not strictly traceable to direction issued by this Court. As a matter of fact, accepted norm – be it in form of CBI Manual or like instruments is to insist on a preliminary inquiry. One can also say that the protection to a public servant is the underlying principle under certain provisions like Section 197 of Code and as such there is some foundation in statutory provisions.

Result : Writ Petition allowed.