News Analysis India

Tag: Vinod Dua

  • ‘Vinod Dua remains extremely critical and fragile’: Daughter on veteran journalist’s health

    By PTI

    NEW DELHI: The condition of veteran journalist Vinod Dua continues to be “extremely critical and fragile”, his daughter, actor-comic Mallika Dua, said on Tuesday.

    The 67-year-old journalist, a pioneer in broadcast Hindi journalism with stints in Doordarshan and NDTV, was last night moved to the Intensive Care Unit of Apollo Hospital on the advice of doctors here.

    “He was moved to the Apollo Hospital ICU last night where he can be cared for better. He remains extremely critical and fragile. He has been a fighter his entire life. Uncompromising and relentless. His family is the same when it comes to him,” Mallika Dua wrote on her Instagram Story.

    Vinod Dua, who was hospitalised with Covid earlier this year, lost his wife, radiologist Padmavati ‘Chinna’ Dua, to the virus in June.

    “Mama would not have given up on him or watch him give up on himself. She will guide us to do what’s best for him. My sister and I are okay. We were raised by the strongest,” added Mallika Dua in her post, adding that she will share the latest update on her father’s status once she speaks to the doctors after morning rounds.

    On Monday, Mallika Dua said her father was in the ICU of a city hospital here and his condition was “beyond critical”.

    As news of his ill-health spread, so did fake news that he had passed away and some people even posted condolence messages, prompting his daughter to request people to not spread rumours.

    Vinod Dua and his wife were in a hospital in Gurgaon when the second Covid wave was at its peak.

    The journalist’s health has suffered ever since and he has been in and out of hospitals.

    The couple is also parents to elder daughter Bakul Dua, a clinical psychologist.

  • Editors Guild welcomes SC verdict on sedition case against veteran journalist Vinod Dua

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: The Editors Guild of India (EGI) on Friday welcomed the Supreme Court verdict on the sedition case against veteran journalist Vinod Dua, and demanded repeal of the “draconian” and “antiquated” sedition laws.

    The apex court on Thursday quashed a sedition case against Dua for his alleged comments against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his YouTube show last year, saying a 1962 verdict entitles every journalist to protection.

    “EGI expresses satisfaction with the Supreme Court’s concerns over the chilling effect that sedition laws have on free media and our democracy,” the Guild said in a statement.

    ALSO READ | Vinod Dua sedition case: SC verdict relief for others facing similiar charges

    “The Guild demands repeal of these draconian and antiquated laws that find no space in any modern liberal democracy,” it said.

    The apex court not just quashed the criminal complaint against Dua, but also underlined the importance of protecting journalists from sedition cases, the Guild noted.

    “While the reference to the earlier judgement of Justice Kedar Nath Singh and the need to protect journalists from sedition charges is welcome, the manner in which such laws are implemented by the law enforcement authorities in different parts of the country, leading to pre-trial incarceration, needs further intervention by the apex court,” the Guild added.

  • Vinod Dua sedition case: SC verdict relief for others facing similiar charges

    By Express News Service
    NEW DELHI: With the Supreme Court quashing the FIR on sedition and other charges against senior journalist Vinod Dua, many journalists who have been at the wrong end of this law can expect relief on similar grounds.

    According to legal experts, Thursday’s ruling will come as a relief for journalists facing sedition cases. Interestingly, another bench of the Supreme Court has already issued a notice on a set of other petitions to examine the interpretation of the sedition law, particularly in the light of media rights and freedom of speech.

    “Today’s judgement will be a precedent for other pending cases. Moreover, the court in previous cases had decided to examine the law which will directly impact the ongoing cases. It will be interesting to see if the court examines the law clause by clause so that enough checks and balances will be in place and its misuse can be minimised,” said Supreme Court advocate Ashish Singh.

    Section 124A of the IPC describes sedition as punishable with imprisonment from three years to a lifetime, a fine, or both. Uttar Pradesh has filed over 22 sedition cases in the wake of a sexual assault in Hathras last year. Among them is Kerala-based scribe Siddique Kappan.

    According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), conviction rate in sedition cases was 3.3 per cent in 2019. Earlier this year, such cases were filed against journalists Mrinal Pande, Rajdeep Sardesai, Vinod Jose, Zafar Agha, Paresh Nath and Anant Nath for sedition, among other charges, after the farmers’ tractor rally in Delhi on Republic Day. The top court has stayed the arrest of all of them.

    Two journalists from Manipur were slapped with NSA and sedition charges. In 2018, Law Commission of India stated that for expressing a thought not in consonance with the government’s policy a person should not be charged under sedition.

  • SC trashes allegation Vinod Dua spread rumours on COVID, says situation was ‘definitely alarming’

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Thursday shot down the allegation that veteran journalist Vinod Dua was spreading rumours about India’s preparedness to deal with the pandemic and created panic on movement of migrant workers last year, saying “situation was definitely alarming”.

    A bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran not only quashed the FIR against Dua but took recourse of the 1962 judgment in the Kedar Nath Singh in ruling that journalists are entitled to protection in sedition cases so long as they do not incite people to violence against the government established by law or with the intention of creating public disorder.

    It was alleged in the FIR, lodged at Shimla in Himachal Pradesh by a local BJP leader, that Dua created panic amongst public and disturbed public peace by trying to spread false information such as the government does not have enough testing facilities and migrants are going to native places during the lockdown.

    A bench, which held that “all the offences set out in the FIR, in our considered view, are not made out at all”, examined the alleged offensive statements used for lodging the police complaint for offences including sedition and public mischief under the IPC.

    It was alleged that Dua, in his show, termed as the biggest failure the fact that the government did not have enough facilities to carry out testing.

    “Till now we do not have any information how many (PPE suits, N95 masks and masks of 3 ply) we have and how many will become available by when and the ventilators needed in other countries and in India, respiratory devices and sanitisers were being exported till 24.3.2020 instead of keeping these for use in our country,” was allegedly said by the journalist on his show uploaded on March 30, 2020.

    “We now consider these statements,” the bench said in its judgement and analysed whether there was any element of criminality.

    What was prevailing on March 30, 2020 was clear that the migrant workers, in huge numbers, were moving towards their villages, it noted.

    In the circumstances, there would naturally be some apprehension about the shelter and food to be provided to them en-route and if Dua in show made certain assertions, then he would be within his rights to say that as a journalist he was touching upon issues of great concern, the bench said in its 117-page judgement.

    “It cannot be said that the petitioner was spreading any false information or rumours. It is not the case of the respondents that the migrant workers started moving towards their home towns/villages purely as a result of the statements made by the petitioner,” it said.

    Such movement of migrant workers had begun long before and in the circumstances, these statements can neither be taken to be an attempt to incite migrant workers to start moving towards their home towns or villages nor can it be taken to be an incitement for causing any food riots, Justice Lait, who wrote the judgement, said.

    “The situation was definitely alarming around March 30, 2020 and as a journalist if the petitioner showed some concern, could it be said that he committed offences as alleged,” it said.

    It is common knowledge that countries found themselves wanting in terms of infrastructure and facilities to cope up with the effects of the pandemic, it said, adding that considering the size of the population of this country, the testing facilities, at least in the initial stages, were not exactly adequate.

    “If in that light, the petitioner made any comments about testing facilities or PPE Suits, N-95 masks and masks of 3 ply, those comments in first two statements, cannot be anything other than appraisal of the situation then obtaining,” it held.

    In giving clean chit to Dua, the top court used its own earlier order to show that the movement of migrant workers back to their home town or villages had posed an alarming situation.

    “This Court suggested that a daily bulletin by the Government of India be made active so that correct and precise information was made available to the general public and the exodus of migrant workers could thus be checked.

    “However, the Order also shows the magnitude of the problem which required about 6,66,291 persons to be provided shelter and 22,88,279 persons to be provided food,” it said while noting its earlier order in the suo motu case related to miseries faced by migrant workers.

  • ‘Every journalist is entitled to protection’: SC quashes sedition case against Vinod Dua

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday quashed a sedition case against veteran scribe Vinod Dua for his alleged comments against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his YouTube show last year, saying a 1962 verdict entitles every journalist to protection.

    A bench comprising Justices U U Lalit and Vineet Saran, however, declined the prayer of Dua that no FIR should be registered against any media personnel with 10 years’ experience unless cleared by a committee, saying it would amount to an encroachment into the domain of the executive.

    On the issue of protection of freedom of speech and expression of media personnel, it said, “Every journalist is entitled to protection under the Kedar Nath Singh judgment (the famous verdict of 1962 on the scope and ambit of offence of sedition in the IPC).””

    While upholding validity of section 124A (sedition) of the IPC, the top court in 1962 had ruled the sedition charges could not be invoked against a citizen for criticism of government actions as it would be in conformity with the freedom of speech and expression.

    The bench on October 6 last year had reserved the verdict on the petition after hearing arguments for Dua, the Himachal Pradesh government and the complainant, a local BJP leader, in the case.

    On July 20 last year, the top court had extended till further orders the protection granted to Dua from any coercive action in the case.

    SC quashes sedition FIR against Vinod Dua registered in Himachal Pradesh @NewIndianXpress
    — kanupsarda (@sardakanu_TNIE) June 3, 2021

    The top court had earlier said that Dua need not answer any other supplementary questions asked by the Himachal Pradesh police in connection with the case.

    An FIR against Dua under provisions of the Indian Penal Code for alleged offences of sedition, public nuisance, printing defamatory materials and public mischief was lodged by BJP leader Shyam at Kumarsain police station in Shimla district on May 6 last year and the journalist was asked to join the probe.

    Shyam has alleged that Dua, in his YouTube show, had made certain allegations against the prime minister.

    Earlier, in an unprecedented hearing conducted on a Sunday on June 14 last year, the top court had granted protection from arrest to Dua till further orders.

    However, it had refused to stay the ongoing probe against him.

    Besides seeking quashing of the FIR, Dua, in the plea, has sought “exemplary damages” for “harassment”.

    He has also sought direction from the apex court that “henceforth FIRs against persons belonging to the media with at least 10 years’ standing be not registered unless cleared by a committee to be constituted by every state government, the composition of which should comprise of the Chief Justice of the High Court or a judge designated by him, the leader of the Opposition and the Home Minister of the State.”

    Dua has said freedom of the press is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

    The plea has said the top court has been “emphasising for distancing the police from the ruling party in the state” but “none of the major political parties which are in power in various states are ready to give up their control over the police”.

    “There is a recent trend against the media where state governments which do not find a particular telecast to be in sync with their political ideologies register FIRs against persons of the media primarily to harass them and to intimidate them so that they succumb to the line of the state or else face the music at the hands of the police,” the plea has claimed.

    It claimed there is a concerted approach of authorities “to silence the media which is not palatable to them”.

    It alleged that the FIR registered against Dua is “politically motivated” and is “purely to settle scores for critically evaluating the functioning of the central government at the present time of Covid”.

  • SC to deliver verdict on June 3 on journalist Vinod Dua’s plea for quashing of FIR

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce its verdict on Thursday on a plea of senior journalist Vinod Dua seeking quashing of FIR lodged against him for sedition and other offences by a local BJP leader in Himachal Pradesh over his YouTube show.

    A bench of Justices U U Lalit and Vineet Saran had on October 6 last year reserved the verdict on the petition after hearing arguments for Dua, the Himachal Pradesh government and the complainant in the case.

    On July 20 last year, the top court had extended till further orders the protection granted to Dua from any coercive action in the case.

    The apex court had earlier said that Dua need not answer any other supplementary questions asked by Himachal Pradesh police in connection with the case.

    An FIR against Dua under provisions of Indian Penal Code for alleged offences of sedition, public nuisance, printing defamatory materials and public mischief was lodged by BJP leader Shyam at Kumarsain police station in Shimla district on May 6 last year and the journalist was asked to join the probe.

    Shyam has alleged that Dua, in his YouTube show, accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of using “deaths and terror attacks” to get votes.

    Earlier, in an unprecedented hearing conducted on a Sunday on June 14 last year, the top court had granted protection from arrest to Dua till further orders.

    However, it had refused to stay the ongoing probe against him.

    Besides seeking quashing of the FIR, Dua, in the plea, has sought “exemplary damages” for “harassment”.

    He has also sought direction from the apex court that “henceforth FIRs against persons belonging to the media with at least 10 years standing be not registered unless cleared by a committee to be constituted by every state government, the composition of which should comprise of the Chief Justice of the High Court or a Judge designated by him, the leader of the Opposition and the Home Minister of the State.”

    Dua has said freedom of the press is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

    The plea has said the top court has been “emphasizing for distancing the police from the ruling party in the state” but “none of the major political parties which are in power in various states are ready to give up their control over the police”.

    “There is a recent trend against the media where state governments which do not find a particular telecast to be in sync with their political ideologies register FIRs against persons of the media primarily to harass them and to intimidate them so that they succumb to the line of the state or else face the music at the hands of the police,” the plea has claimed.

    It claimed there is a concerted approach of authorities “to silence the media which is not palatable to them”.

    It alleged that the FIR registered against Dua is “politically motivated” and is “purely to settle scores for critically evaluating the functioning of the central government at the present time of COVID”.