[Article on Farmers' Protest] Allahabad High Court quashes FIR against The Wire's Siddharth Varadarajan, Ismat Ara

The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday quashed a First Information Report (FIR) registered against the founding editor of The Wire, Siddharth Varadarajan and its reporter Ismat Ara in connection with their reportage on the death of a protester during the farmers protests in Delhi [Siddharth Varadarajan And Another v State Of UP]..A Bench of Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Rajnish Kumar quashed the FIR, reasoning that the allegations did not disclose the commission of offences under Sections 153B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration) and 505(2) (statements creating or promoting enmity between classes) of the Indian Penal Code."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 did not find any opinion or assertion in the news item which could have had the effect of provoking or inciting the people.“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. .The issue arose when The Wire covered the death of a young man who suffered serious injuries during the farmers' protests. The news item titled "Autopsy Doctor Told Me He'd Seen the Bullet Injury but Can Do Nothing as His Hands are Tied”, was authored by Ara and shared on the portal's Twitter handle on January 29, 2021.That same day, three doctors who carried out the post-mortem issued a clarificatory statement denying that they had spoken to the media or made a statement in that regard. Therefore, the FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint by one Sanju Turaiha, who alleged that that the publication sought to provoke the masses, spread riots, tarnish the image of medical officers, and disturb law and order..The petitioners submitted that they had been falsely implicated since they had only published the statement of the parents of the deceased. Further, the clarification issued by the doctors was also published at the earliest. The Court took these submissions into account, along with the fact that the State's version as well as the allegations of the victim's family were published in the news item..The Bench also shed light on the ingredients that made up the alleged offences, stating that unless those were fulfilled the offences would not be made out.Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Amish Devgan v. Union of India where it was held that dissent and criticism of the elected government’s policy, when puissant, deceptive or even false would be ethically wrong, but would not invite penal action.It was also held that in the absence of active incitement, it could not be said that a news item was published to create nuisance or riot and incite the people.Further, the Bench discussed the judgment in Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya, where it was held that only where the written or spoken words had the tendency to create public disorder or disturbance of law and order or affecting public tranquility, should the law step in.With these observations, the FIR was quashed. .Advocates Mehul Khare and Pragya Pandey appeared for the petitioners..[Read Order]