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.
The Supreme Court of India yesterday quashed a sedition case registered against senior journalist and Padma Shri awardee Vinod Dua for his critical remarks about Prime Minister Narendra Modi 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.
Read more about Journalists entitled to protection : Supreme Court quashes sedition case on Business Standard. Journalists are entitled to protection in sedition cases under a 1962 verdict so long as they do not incite violence against the government, the Supreme Court held on Thursday while quashing an FIR against Vinod Dua for his alleged comments against
Delhi HC Bail Order in Rape Case May Have Flouted Supreme Court Ban On Outing Victim s Statement
The order granting anticipatory bail to Varun Hiremath quotes extensively from the victim s statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC even though the SC made it clear in the Chinmayanand case last year that no one is entitled to a copy at this stage.
Delhi high court. Photo: PTI
Women20 hours ago
New Delhi: On Thursday, Justice Mukta Gupta of the Delhi high court granted anticipatory bail to a Mumbai-based journalist accused of rape in a 19-page order which quotes extensively from the victim’s statement recorded before a magistrate under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Realising that the bail order may thus have compromised the complainantâs right to confidentiality till the conclusion of the trial, Justice Gupta directed that the order not be uploaded on the court’s website.