Indiscriminate use of sedition against media personnel who air their grievances about the Government, must be checked: Supreme Court
Indiscriminate use of the sedition law against critics, journalists, social media users, activists and citizens for airing their grievances about the governments COVID-19 management, or even for seeking help to gain medical access, equipment, drugs and oxygen cylinders, especially during the second wave of the pandemic, must be interpreted in the context of the right of 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 three-judge bench of Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice L Nageshwar Rao and Justice SR Bhat, while adjudicating the matter in M/S Aamoda Broadcasting Company Pvt Ltd &amp; Anr v. The State of Andhra Pradesh &amp; Ors; [W.P.(Crl.) No. 216/2021 (X)]; dealt with the issue of aimless slapping of sedition law against the media. Media plays an important role in a democracy. It is well-known that media is the fourth pillar of democracy and its freedom must be protected at all costs. On May 14th 2021, the Andhra Pradesh police station lodged an FIR against Telugu TV Channels TV5 and ABN, under Section 124A for sedition, Section 153 A for promoting enmity between different groups, and Section 505 for defamation under the Indian Penal Code. Apparently, these Telugu TV channels were critical of Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy for mis-managing the Covid-19 crisis. In response to this, the Telugu TV Channels challenged Andhra Pradesh police’s decision to file a case against them. The TV channels were represented by advocates Vipin Nair and G Pramod Kumar. They argued that the sedition FIR against them was an “unfortunate assault”. The State had accused them of sedition for reporting news about the pandemic in an “unbiased manner”. “Merely because the content of the news reported in an unbiased manner is critical of a government or not to its liking, it cannot be said that the news outlet has committed an act of sedition or inciting hatred. To do so would be directly contrary to the freedom of Press,” ABN, represented by Guntur Pramod Kumar, said in the petition.TV5 said the “vague” FIR had a chilling effect on free speech in the media. “The attempt of the FIR is to create a chilling effect for news channels in the State, so that every news channel is wary of hosting any content which is critical of the government. By filing a vague FIR and abusing the process of law, the State intends to silence its critics and the media,” TV5 said.
ITEM NO.329 Court 5SECTION PIL W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s).217 2021 M S AAMODA BROADCASTING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. Petitioner(s VERSUS THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. WITH IA No.62627 2021 EX PARTE STAY W.P.(Crl.) No. 216 2021TV5 andABN. They are aggrieved by a First Information Report being FIR No 121 registered on 14 May 2021 under the provisions of Sections 124 153A 505 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The FIR indicates that it is a “suo motu case” based on an enquiry report of the DIG CID AP Mangalagiri Guntur District dated 13 May 2021. The gravamen of the allegation against the news channels arises from certain programmes which have been broadcast by them. During the programmes Mr Raghurama Krishnam Raju Member of Parliament is alleged to have expressed views critical of the State Government and the Chief Minister Besides Mr Raju who has been named as the first accused TV5 and ABN have been named as the second and third accused Mr Shyam Divan and Mr Sidharth Luthra learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners have submitted that the FIR constitutes an attempt to muzzle the electronic media and is an assault on the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It has been submitted that read as they stand the allegations in the FIR do not establish any offences under the provisions which have been invoked against them. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 has been invoked on the ground that while dealing with the suo motu Covid 19 case1 this Court in its order dated 30 April 2021 has made categoric observations in regard to the need for restraint on the invocation of the coercive arm of the law against persons voicing comments critical to matters of governance which arise in the context of the Covid crisis. The SMW(C) No 21 Member of Parliament has been granted bail by the Court Having heard learned counsel 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 information and the rights even those that may be critical of the prevailing regime in any part of the nation Issue notice returnable in six weeks Dasti in addition is permitted Liberty to serve the Standing Counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh Counter affidavit shall be filed within a period of four weeks from the date of Till the next date of listing there shall be a stay on the respondents adopting any coercive proceedings in pursuance of FIR No 121 dated 14 May 2021 against the two television channels which are the petitioners before the Court namely TV5 and ABN as well as their personnel AR CUM PS COURT MASTER SAROJ KUMARI GAUR