Any good law can be misused or abused: Supreme Court; journalists’ articles, videos prima facie not sedition, says top court | India News

NEW DELHI: Supreme Court mentioned on Tuesday {that a} journalist’s information article or video is prima facie not an act endangering the unity and integrity of the nation to ask a cost beneath Section 152 of BNS, the modified model of the ‘sedition’ offence beneath IPC Section 124A.A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi mentioned this whereas defending from arrest the editor of reports web site ‘The Wire’, Siddharth Varadarajan, and members of the ‘Foundation of Independent Journalism’ in an FIR registered by Assam Police on a criticism accusing the editor of writing seditious articles by reporting in regards to the alleged lack of IAF jets throughout Operation Sindoor. The scribe mentioned he wrote the report quoting India’s defence personnel, together with the nation’s navy attache to Indonesia.

Any good law can be misused or abused: SC

The bench mentioned, “For writing articles or preparing news videos, should journalists get entangled in cases? Should it require arrests?”Solicitor normal Tushar Mehta mentioned the petition filed by the journalist difficult the validity of Section 152 is a camouflage to keep away from accountability.Justice Kant mentioned, “We are not classifying journalists as a separate class. However, does an article pose an imminent threat to the unity and integrity of the country? It is an article, not like someone is smuggling illegal arms and ammunition into India.”On the petitioners’ allegation that Section 152 does not outline which acts represent an offence beneath the availability, Justice Kant mentioned, “How can it be legislatively defined as to which all acts would constitute an offence of endangering the unity and integrity of the country? Law has to be applied to facts of each case to determine whether the charge under Section 152 is correct. Inviting the legislature to define what endangers national unity and integrity will be inviting danger.“Appearing for petitioners, senior advocate Nithya Ramakrishnan mentioned they’ve additionally challenged the validity of BNS Section 152, which is nothing however a refined model of the draconian Section 124A, the operation of which was nearly stayed by SC pending adjudication of its validity by a five-judge bench.The court did not settle for her second line of argument that Section 152 was vulnerable to misuse and abuse by police. “Is potential abuse or misuse of a provision of law by authorities a valid ground to declare that provision of law unconstitutional? There is a vast difference between implementation of a law and power to legislate,” Justice Bagchi mentioned.Justice Kant’s response was related. “Any good law, declared constitutional by SC, can be misused or abused by police authorities. Should that be a ground to declare the law unconstitutional? SC ruling in the Kedar Nath Singh (1962 case) continues to hold the field and in which SC had ruled that the crime of sedition is restricted to ‘actual violence or incitement to violence’ against the govt.”Senior advocate Ramakrishnan mentioned that the phrase ‘sedition’ is not there in Section 152 however for all different functions the intent of the availability is similar to Section 124A and is being more and more used to harass journalists.The bench reluctantly agreed to tag this petition with a petition by S G Vombatkere, who has additionally challenged the validity of Section 152 and whose earlier petition difficult Section 124A is pending adjudication.