Delhi High Court: Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J., stayed the investigation against the television anchor and journalist Vinod Dua, alleged for spreading rumours and misinformation about the sensitive issue of Delhi Riots and causing hatred and ill-will between the different communities through his web cast on You Tube.
Who filed the present petition?
The petition was filed by Vinod Dua — Journalist and Television Anchor praying for quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 290/505/505(2) of the Penal Code, 1860. Petitioner sought investigation into the said registration of the FIR, as also for violation of his fundamental rights.
Genesis of the matter
Petitioner has a webcast on HW News Network on the YouTube Platform named “The Vinod Dua Show”.
Petitioner’s Stand
Senior Counsel, Vikas Singh submitted that the webcast was made on 11.03.2020 and ran for approximately 12 minutes, comprising two parts, each addressing a different current affairs issue. About 08 minutes of the webcast was in relation to the politics of government formation in the State of Madhya Pradesh in the context of some recent happenings.
As per the allegations contained in FIR, the above mentioned part of the webcast is not subject matter of the FIR.
Second part of about 4 minutes was in relation to the riots that happened in the North-East part of Delhi in February, 2020 and the complainant’s grievance appears to be with what was said in relation to the riots; and that was the subject matter of the complaint made and the FIR registered against the petitioner.
Petitioner’s Counsel relied on the following Supreme Court Judgments:
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335
- Lalita Kumar v. Govt. of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1
- Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of U.P., (2012) 2 SCC 688
FIR
FIR records that the petitioner is spreading rumours and misinformation about the sensitive issue of Delhi Riots, which are resulting into causing hatred and ill-will between the different communities.
Respondent’s Stand
Counsel, Piyush Singhal on behalf of respondent 1 submitted that the notice has been issued to YouTube and petitioner has so far not even called for investigation.
Respondent 2’s counsel’s Anil Soni, Ajay Digpaul and Satya Ranjan Swain argued against granting interim relief to the petitioner on the following basis:
- ingredients of Section 505(2) IPC are made-out on the basis of the allegations in the complaint and in the FIR
- narration made in the offending webcast to the effect that Delhi Police should issue a fact-sheet indicating as to how many people from the minority community were picked-up and arrested; from where; in what condition and under what threat, amounts to propagating alarming news with intent to create or promote enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes, which is an offence punishable under Section 505(2), and which is both cognizable and non-bailable;
- What is stated in the offending narration is merely the petitioner’s ‘opinion’ and not based on any ‘fact’, and that only rumour has been fostered to create enmity;
- there is no legal basis or precedent for staying investigation or proceedings in an FIR
On Prima Facie view, following aspects emerge:
- Substantial unexplained delay in filing of the complaint and registration of the FIR: Delay of almost 3 months
- Petitioner learned about the registration of FIR through social media
- what the complainant alleges was said in the webcast, is not what appears in the transcript of the webcast ; and to that extent no cognizable offence is disclosed on the basis of the material cited by the complainant warranting registration of an FIR
- there is no allegation that any adverse consequences, in terms of enmity, hatred or ill-will, much less any violence or breach of peace, occurred as a consequence of the webcast
- ingredients and gravamen of the offence under section 505(2) do not seem to be made-out as required per Manzar Sayeed Khan Judgment.
Thus, it prima facie appears that the registration of the FIR requires to be examined on the touchstone of the law.
Though petitioner has already been granted an interim protection by Additional Sessions Judge, this Court is of the view that further investigation or proceedings pursuant to the FIR would cause unwarranted and unjustified harassment to the petitioner.
Investigation in the matter arising from the subject FIR is stayed, till the next date of hearing.
Matter to be listed on 23-07-2020. [Vinod Dua v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC OnLine Del 644 , decided on 10-06-2020]
