The case pertains to Vinod Dua for his remarks about the Prime Minister and the Centre.
The Supreme Court on Thursday quashed a sedition case registered against a senior journalist Vinod Dua for his critical remarks about the Prime Minister and the Union Government in a YouTube telecast while underscoring its 59-year-old verdict that “strong words” of disapproval about the ruling regime does not amount to sedition.
A Bench led by Justice U.U. Lalit upheld the right of every journalist to criticise, even brutally, the government’s measures to improve or alter them through legal means. The free speech of a journalist should be protected from charges of sedition.
INTRODUCTION:
In what is being termed as one of the most landmark judgments upholding the right to free speech in recent times, the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal and Ors. vs Union of India, struck down Section 66A of the Information & Technology Act, 2000. The ruling which is being lauded by the common man and legal luminaries alike, found the Cyber law provision to be open-ended, vague and unconstitutional owing to the restriction it caused to the Indian citizens right to free speech.
FLAWS IN S.66A:
The Bench primarily objected to the vague and ambiguous phrasing of S.66A that left it open to arbitrary application and misuse, in addition to the fact that S.66A was a cognizable offence, i.e. those who posted content that can be considered ‘offensive’ or ‘menacing’ could be arrested by the Police without a warrant, making this the most crucial drawback to this vaguely drafted provision. What essentially made this provision prone to inappropriate application was leaving