Deals & Matter

Vinod Dua vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. case

Environmental Law

NGT Case

Vinod Dua vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. case
  • O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 349/2022
  • 29 November 2022
  • Delhi High Court

Brief of the Case

Vinod Dua, a senior journalist and television anchor, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 CrPC, challenging the registration of FIR No. 74/2020 dated 4 June 2020 at PS Crime Branch, New Delhi. The FIR was lodged under Sections 290, 505, and 505(2) IPC, based on a complaint by Naveen Kumar, a spokesperson of a political party, alleging that Dua’s webcast on HW News Network contained misinformation and communal overtones about the Delhi riots of February 2020. Dua sought quashing of the FIR, compensation for violation of his fundamental rights, and protection from harassment.

Petitioner’s Claim

1. Freedom of Speech & Press
  • Dua argued that his webcast (11 March 2020) was legitimate journalistic commentary.
  • The portion under challenge only highlighted lack of government response and police inaction during riots.
  • He emphasized that he never alleged government instigation of violence, contrary to the FIR’s claims.
2. Transcript vs Allegations
  • He submitted the full transcript, showing he only noted that senior government functionaries did not visit riot-affected areas as they were engaged with a foreign dignitary’s visit.
  • He had also cited the failure of police to act against three political leaders who allegedly made hate speeches — this was already recorded by a Delhi High Court Division Bench in February 2020.
3. Delay and Mala Fides
  • The webcast was on 11 March 2020, but the complaint was filed nearly three months later (3 June 2020).
  • Such unexplained delay, especially when complainant was a ruling party spokesperson, indicated mala fide intention.
4. No Offence Made Out
  • Section 290 IPC (public nuisance) is non-cognizable and trivial.
  • Sections 505(1)(c) and 505(2) IPC (promoting enmity, hatred, ill-will) require mens rea and reference to at least two communities.
  • His webcast fell under the exception to Section 505 IPC: statements made in good faith and believed to be true.
5. Judicial Precedents Relied On
  • State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992): FIR can be quashed where no offence is disclosed or mala fide is evident.
  • Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2014): Preliminary inquiry is needed where there is abnormal delay.
  • Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of U.P. (2012): Courts can stay investigation to prevent harassment.
6. Relief Sought
  • Quashing of FIR.
  • Stay on investigation.
  • Compensation of ₹1 crore for violation of fundamental rights.

Deals & Matter Corner

The Delhi High Court restrained DTIDC from

Delhi High Court appeal challenges the disputed

View More

Articles & Publications

The Division Bench of the Delhi High

Varun Singh, Founder and Managing Partner, Foresight

View More
Blogs

Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation

The power of a governmental authority or

View More

Respondent’s Defence

State (NCT of Delhi):

  • Claimed the investigation was still at a “nascent stage.”
  • Notices were sent to YouTube; Dua had not been called for interrogation yet.
  • Opposed quashing at a preliminary stage.

Complainant (Naveen Kumar)

  • Statements Incited Communal Hatred
  • Alleged Dua falsely suggested that Delhi Police targeted members of a minority community.
  • This amounted to spreading alarming news and fostering enmity between groups under Section 505(2) IPC.
  • Webcast Still Circulating
  • Delay explained: complainant only saw the webcast on 2 June 2020.
  • Content remained accessible on YouTube and social media, continuing its “harmful effect.”
  • Not Fact but Opinion
  • Argued Dua’s remarks were speculative, not factual reporting.
  • Accused him of propagating rumours to disturb communal harmony.
  • No Interim Relief
  • Stated that courts rarely stay investigations at FIR stage.
  • Investigation must proceed to uncover truth.

Court’s Observations

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani (Delhi High Court, 10 June 2020)

  • Delay in Complaint
  • Almost 3-month delay between webcast and FIR required preliminary inquiry per Lalita Kumari.
  • No such inquiry was conducted.
  • Mismatch Between Allegations & Record
  • FIR alleged Dua accused govt. of instigating riots.
  • Transcript showed otherwise — only criticism of inaction and reference to speeches already noted by another Delhi HC Bench.
  • Good Faith Exception
  • Dua’s narration was based on judicial records (26 Feb 2020 order).
  • Prima facie fell within the exception under Section 505 IPC.
  • No Adverse Consequences Shown

No evidence of communal violence, hatred, or unrest triggered by webcast.

  • Ingredients of Section 505(2) Not Met
  • Offence requires reference to two communities.
  • Here, only one community was mentioned, insufficient per Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra (2007) and Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P.
  • Possible Harassment
  • Investigation appeared to rest solely on webcast recording.
  • Continuation would likely cause harassment to petitioner.
  • Judicial Perspective
  • Cited Muniswamy (1977) and Devendrappa (2002): Courts can quash proceedings if they amount to abuse of process.
  • Emphasized role of High Courts to prevent misuse of criminal law against journalists.

Order Passed

  • Stay of Investigation
  • On 10 June 2020, Delhi High Court stayed further investigation under FIR No. 74/2020 until further orders.
  • Interim protection was extended across multiple hearings (July 2020 – September 2021).
  • Linked Supreme Court Proceedings
  • Since Dua faced similar FIRs in other states, the matter overlapped with W.P. (Crl.) 154/2020 pending before the Supreme Court.
  • Delhi HC adjourned hearings several times to await the SC ruling.
  • Supreme Court Ruling (June 2021)
  • SC quashed FIRs in Himachal Pradesh against Dua, holding journalists are entitled to protection under free speech unless their reporting incites violence.
  • This ruling heavily influenced the Delhi HC proceedings.
  • Abatement of Delhi Petition
  • On 15 December 2021, Justice Subramonium Prasad recorded that Vinod Dua had passed away.
  • Consequently, the writ petition stood abated.
  • All interim orders protecting Dua lapsed, but since he had died, no further proceedings survived.

Deals and Matter

Disclaimer

This website is for informational purposes only and is not intended to advertise or solicit work as per the Bar Council of India rules. By accessing www.foresightlawoffices.com, you acknowledge that you are seeking information about Foresight Law voluntarily. Nothing on this site constitutes legal advice or creates a lawyer-client relationship. Foresight Law is not responsible for any actions taken based on the content here. External links do not imply endorsement. Please do not share confidential information via this website. For details, review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

I Agree I Disagre

Scroll to Top