Scribd
Upload
353 views10 pages

Vinod Dua VS Uoi 2

The Supreme Court of India quashed the FIR registered against Vinod Dua, a journalist who released a YouTube video criticizing Prime Minister Narendra Modi's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. The court rejected the argument that Dua's comments amounted to sedition or a public nuisance. It found that Dua was exercising his right to free speech and his comments represented a critical analysis of the government's response, not false information intended to incite violence. While the respondent argued Dua failed to verify facts before publishing, the court determined no charges were applicable as Dua did not actually make the assertions around Modi and terrorism cited in the FIR.

Uploaded by

Gurpuneet Gill
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as KEY, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
353 views10 pages

Vinod Dua VS Uoi 2

The Supreme Court of India quashed the FIR registered against Vinod Dua, a journalist who released a YouTube video criticizing Prime Minister Narendra Modi's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. The court rejected the argument that Dua's comments amounted to sedition or a public nuisance. It found that Dua was exercising his right to free speech and his comments represented a critical analysis of the government's response, not false information intended to incite violence. While the respondent argued Dua failed to verify facts before publishing, the court determined no charges were applicable as Dua did not actually make the assertions around Modi and terrorism cited in the FIR.

Uploaded by

Gurpuneet Gill
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as KEY, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 10

PRESENTATION

NAME :- SUNIL GARG


UID :- 18BAL5185
BALLB - 8th SEM. (SECTION-B)

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
NAME OF THE PARTIES

VINOD DUA(PETITIONER)
vs.
Union of India(RESPONDENT)
FACTS OF THE CASE

Vinod Dua, a journalist released a YouTube video in which he criticised Prime


Minister of India, Narendra Modi for mishandling the covid pandemic. Another thing
spoken about was the lack of sufficient information on the availability of materials
like PPE kits, N95 masks, etc. . Alleged that the petitioner further made derogatory
statement against PM. It was alleged that the petitioner was spreading false and
malicious news relating to the Prime Minister of India and that is inciting violence
amongst the citizens and disturbing the tranquility of the public. The petitioner
allegedly stated that Narendra Modi has used deaths and terror attacks to garner
votes. The petitioner placed his stand by saying that contents in the video are pure
and simple critical analyses of the functioning of the Government and cannot by any
stretch of imagination be said to be alleged offences.
JUDGES & JURISDICTION

JUDGES :- J. Uday Umesh Lalit and J. Vineet Saran

JURISDICTION :- SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


ISSUES INVOLVED

- Whether the petitioner used sedition in his comments under 124A of IPC?


- Whether the petitioner is guilty of a public nuisance or an illegal omission that
caused injury under 268 of IPC?
- Whether there is necessity for judiciary to est. a committee to check & clear FIR’s
issued against the persons of media with more than 10 years experience.
PETITIONER’S ARGUEMENTS

- The petitioner’s counsel strongly argued that Section 124A,268, 501, and 505 of


IPC cannot be charged on him because the video is a pure and critical analysis of the
functioning of the government and cannot be
-The petitioner’s council also argued that the elements required for the act to be
defined as an offence under Sec. 501 and 505 were not established anywhere
-The petitioner’s council also argued that statement given in FIR was factually
incorrect and such an assertion was never made by the petitioner.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUEMENT

-The respondent’s council argued that the petitioner had attempted to spread
misinformation or inaccurate information a create a situation of panic amongst the
people.
-The respondent’s council argued that according to the Norms of Journalist Conduct
framed by Press Council of India, the petitioner was obliged to check the facts, data, and
their sources thoroughly and authenticate before publishing or making such statements
in the light of the pandemic. 
JUDGEMENT

- The Supreme Court of India quashed the FIR registered against the petitioner.
- The Court rejected the prayer that no FIR be registered against a person belonging to
the media with at least 10 years of standing unless cleared by the Committee as
suggested. The Court stated that it is the duty of the legislature and judiciary should not
overstep to their area or field of duty.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS

On analysis it can be stated that no charges of sedition can be put on the petitioner on
the following :-
1. The comment made on the availability of N95 masks, PPE kits, and testing
facilities not being adequate is just an appraisal of the situation then.
2. The petitioner never said that the Prime Minister used terror attacks or terrorism to
garner his votes rather he spoke about Pulwama and Pathankot attacks and Balakot
airstrikes to garner votes and these are sufficient to hold the view that no allegations
were made against the Prime Minister.
Thus it can be concluded by stating that the petitioner was acting responsibly, and
even during the time of this pandemic, the petitioner just exercised his rights and
nothing beyond and his statement regarding the PM was mis interpreted.
THANK YOU

You might also like