The Allahabad High Court in the case of Siddharth Varadarajan And Another v State Of UP found no viewpoint or allegation in the news item published in The Wire that may have been used to provoke or incite the public.
On Wednesday, the Allahabad High Court rejected a First Information Report (FIR) filed against The Wire’s founding editor, Siddharth Varadarajan, and its reporter, Ismat Ara, in connection with their reporting on a protester’s murder during the Delhi farmers’ protests.
The FIR was quashed by a bench of Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Rajnish Kumar, who reasoned that the allegations did not reveal the commission of offences under Indian Penal Code Sections 153B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration) and 505(2) (statements creating or promoting enmity between classes).
The allegations made in the FIR does not disclose the commissioning of offences under Sections 153-B and 505 (2) IPC, therefore, it is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed,
The Court Said
The Bench found no viewpoint or allegation in the news item that may have been used to provoke or incite the public.
Nothing was also brought before this court to indicate that there was any disturbance or riot which may have any bearing on public disorder on account of the publication of news/tweet of the petitioners,
The Order stated
When The Wire reported on the death of a young guy who was seriously injured during the farmers’ protests, the problem emerged. Ara wrote “Autopsy Doctor Told Me He’d Seen the Bullet Injury but Can’t Do Anything Because His Hands are Tied” and published it on the portal’s Twitter account on January 29, 2021.
Three physicians who performed the post-mortem released a clarification statement the same day, denying that they had spoken to the media or made a statement in this respect.
As a result, the FIR was filed in response to a complaint filed by Sanju Turaiha, who claimed that the publication was intended to incite riots, degrade the image of medical personnel, and disrupt law and order.
The petitioners claimed that they had been wrongfully accused because they had merely publicised the deceased’s parents’ comments. Furthermore, the physicians’ explanation was released as soon as possible.
The Court considered these representations, as well as the fact that the State’s version and the victim’s family’s complaints were published in the news item.
The Bench also clarified the elements that made up the claimed offences, indicating that the offences would not be proven until those were met.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Amish Devgan v. Union of India was cited, which said that opposition and criticism of an elected government’s policies, even if powerful, deceitful, or even incorrect, is ethically wrong but not punishable.
It was also decided that in the absence of active provocation, a news item could not be claimed to have been published with the intent of causing a disturbance or inciting the public.
The Bench also examined the decision in Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya, which found that the law should only intervene if the written or spoken remarks had the potential to cause public commotion, disruption of law and order, or affect public peace.
The FIR was quashed as a result of these findings.
The petitioners were represented by lawyers Mehul Khare and Pragya Pandey.
Read Judgment
