NEW DELHI: Supreme Court said on Tuesday that a journalist’s news article or video is prima facie not an act endangering the unity and integrity of the country to invite a charge under Section 152 of BNS, the modified version of the ‘sedition’ offence under IPC Section 124A.A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said this while protecting from arrest the editor of news website ‘The Wire’, Siddharth Varadarajan, and members of the ‘Foundation of Independent Journalism’ in an FIR registered by Assam Police on a complaint accusing the editor of writing seditious articles by reporting about the alleged loss of IAF jets during Operation Sindoor. The scribe said he wrote the report quoting India’s defence personnel, including the country’s military attache to Indonesia.

Any good law can be misused or abused: SC

The bench said, “For writing articles or preparing news videos, should journalists get entangled in cases? Should it require arrests?”Solicitor general Tushar Mehta said the petition filed by the journalist challenging the validity of Section 152 is a camouflage to avoid accountability.Justice Kant said, “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 define which acts constitute an offence under the provision, Justice Kant said, “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 said they have also challenged the validity of BNS Section 152, which is nothing but a refined version of the draconian Section 124A, the operation of which was virtually stayed by SC pending adjudication of its validity by a five-judge bench.The court did not accept her second line of argument that Section 152 was prone 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 said.Justice Kant’s response was similar. “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 said that the word ‘sedition’ is not there in Section 152 but for all other purposes the intent of the provision is identical to Section 124A and is being increasingly used to harass journalists.The bench reluctantly agreed to tag this petition with a petition by S G Vombatkere, who has also challenged the validity of Section 152 and whose earlier petition challenging Section 124A is pending adjudication.