The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that a journalist's article or video does not, prima facie, constitute an act endangering the unity and integrity of the country under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)—a provision replacing the sedition law under IPC Section 124A. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi made this observation while granting protection from arrest to Siddharth Varadarajan, editor of The Wire, and members of the Foundation of Independent Journalism, in an FIR filed by Assam Police over a report on alleged IAF jet losses during Operation Sindoor.

The court questioned whether reporting or writing articles should lead to criminal cases or arrests, highlighting the need to evaluate if such content poses an imminent threat to national unity. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued the petition was an attempt to evade accountability. Justice Kant clarified that journalists aren't being given special treatment, but noted that writing an article cannot be equated with a crime like arms smuggling.

The petitioners, represented by senior advocate Nithya Ramakrishnan, argued that Section 152 is vague and prone to misuse, akin to the previously stayed sedition law. However, the court maintained that potential misuse isn't grounds for declaring a law unconstitutional. Justice Bagchi stressed that even good laws can be misused, and constitutionality must be judged by legislative competence, not implementation.

The court tagged this plea with a pending petition by S.G. Vombatkere, who has also challenged the validity of Section 152 after challenging Section 124A.

On June 29, The Wire published the article titled, "IAF Lost Fighter Jets to Pak Because of Political Leadership's Constraints: Indian Defence Attache".

The plea claimed that the article in question contained only a factual report of a seminar organised by a university in Indonesia and statements made by India's defence personnel, including India's military attache to Indonesia, on the lost IAF jets and military tactics employed during Operation Sindoor.

It further alleged that the opposite party is a member and office-bearer of the ruling party in Assam, and that the FIR reflects a deliberate attempt to target the petitioners.
(With inputs from Agencies)