The Delhi High Court on Wednesday has stayed the investigation against Journalist Vinod Dua in the FIR registered against him on a complaint made by Delhi BJP leader who alleged that the scribe made defamatory statements conducive to public mischief on his youtube show.

A single-judge bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani has issued notice while stating that, “this court is persuaded to think that the filing of the complaint and registration of the FIR deserve to be considered and deliberated further, before allowing investigation to proceed against the petitioner. Accordingly, further investigation in the matter arising from the subject FIR is stayed, till the next date of hearing.”

The Court will hear the matter next on 23.07.2020.

“Keeping in view the law as laid-down by the Supreme Court and the guidance and direction given in the above-cited precedents, without forming an opinion on the merits of this matter, this court is persuaded to think that the filing of the complaint and registration of the FIR deserve to be considered and deliberated further, before allowing investigation to proceed against the petitioner,” the Court said.

The Court was apprised by the fact that the petitioner was granted Anticipatory bail on June 10 from Delhi Court.

“Although, as submitted at the bar, the petitioner has already been granted interim protection in anticipatory bail proceedings by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, this court is of the prima-facie view that further investigation or proceedings pursuant to the FIR are likely to cause unwarranted and unjustified harassment to the petitioner,” noted the Delhi High Court in its order.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani noted in his order that on a prima-facie view, in the present case, the following aspects emerge from the record:

(i)                That there is substantial unexplained delay in filing of the complaint and registration of the FIR inasmuch as the date of the alleged offence is 11.03.2020 whereas the complaint came to be made only on 03.06.2020 leading to registration of FIR on 04.06.2020, which is a delay of almost 3 months. Such delay would have required a preliminary enquiry as per the mandate of Lalita Kumari.

(ii)             That even after registration of the FIR on 04.06.2020, as per the statement made by counsel for respondent No.1, no substantial investigation has been carried-out except for issuance of notice to YouTube ; and the petitioner has not been called to join investigation. He says, in fact that he learned of the registration of the FIR through social media and from the public domain;

(iii)           That what the complainant alleges was said in the webcast, is not what appears in the transcript of the webcast ; and to that extent no cognizable offence is disclosed on the basis of the material cited by the complainant warranting registration of an FIR as per Lalita Kumari (cf. para 120.2 of the judgment, supra), Muniswamy (cf. para 7 of the judgment, supra), Bhajan Lal (cf. para 102(2) of the judgment, supra) and Devendrappa (cf. para 8 of judgment) ;

(iv)            That naming the three persons in the webcast and questioning the police inaction against those persons, is based on what was recorded in the Division Bench order dated 26.02.2020 in W.P.(Crl.) No.565/2020; and therefore appears to fall within the exception to section 505, at least on first blush;

(v)              That there is no allegation that any adverse consequences, in terms of enmity, hatred or ill-will, muchless any violence or breach of peace, occurred as a consequence of the webcast;

(vi)            That the ingredients and gravamen of the offence under section 505(2) do not seem to be made-out as required per Manzar Sayeed Khan.

Mr Vinod Dua, who is a known journalist and television anchor, has filed the petition seeking quashing of FIR No.74/2020 dated 04.06.2020 registered under sections 290/505/505(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) at PS : Crime Branch, New Delhi. He has further prayed for an investigation into the registration of the FIR by respondent No.1/State, as also seeks One Crore as compensation for violation of his fundamental rights.

The petition claimed that the FIR is a “proof of the political vendetta” and is nothing but an attempt to stifle the independence of free speech guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution.

“However, the offences mentioned are serious and any action taken by the respondent (Delhi Police) would be life threatening. The petitioner is a senior citizen with co-morbidities like thalassemia minor with iron deficiency, anaemia, pancytopenia (low red and white blood cell and low platelet count), hypertension and splenomegaly, diabetes and hypothyroidism,” said the petition.

“Therefore, if the police take cognisance of the alleged offences mentioned in the FIR filed against him, it would be severely endangering his life during Covid-19. The alleged FIR filed against the petitioner is being widely circulated each day causing irreparable loss and injury to him and violating his fundamental rights,” said the petition, filed through advocates Varun Singh, Deepti Arya, Akshay Dev and Rishabh Rana.

Read the Order here

As stated above that Delhi High Court vide order 10.06.2020 stayed the further investigation in the matter arising from the subject FIR, though Crime Branch, Delhi on 11.06.2020 issued notice under section 91 Cr.P.C to Vinod Dua. See Notice

-India Legal Bureau

The Supreme Court on Thursday, ordered the formation of a medical team of experts from All India Institute of Medical Sciences to look into a case where a special leave petition was filed before the Supreme Court against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal denying the petitioner a scribe while appearing for the UPSC examination.

Justice Chandrachud, has asked the said team to determine the exact nature of the petitioner’s condition, to be able to determine if he suffers from a specified disability under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Court suggested revisiting of guidelines to see if people who do not fall under the definition of benchmark disability under the act, can be given the benefit of a scribe. This was said despite the court noting that misuse of rules may occur if they are made flexible, to include accidental injuries and other disabilities not qualifying the present benchmark.

Facts: Vikash Kumar passed MBBS in the year 2016. He intended to pursue his career in Civil Services and stated that he is suffering from disability in the form of Dysgraphia/ Writer’s Cramp since the year 2015. He challenged a notification of UPSC contending that though the persons having such disability are entitled to be provided the help of a scribe, the Notification issued by the UPSC does not provide for the same. He asked the Central Administrative Tribunal, to direct the first respondent to amend the Notification, so a scribe is provided to candidates with a specific writing disability, such as the applicant.

CAT order: The counsel for the Respondents had contended before the CAT, that the applicant cannot claim the status of the disability, because Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital which is a designated authority to certify the disability refused to issue the certificate of disability to the applicant. The Central Administrative Tribunal held that the petitioner cannot claim the relief of issuance of a direction to the UPSC to amend their notification.

At the Supreme Court: A division bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Ajay Rastogi started hearing the matter on Wednesday. They stated that a reading of the Persons with Disability Act, 2016 — along with the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment in 2018, regarding the conduct of written examination for persons with disabilities, which are followed by the UPSC while conducting the examinations — is important to understand the present case.

The guidelines clearly state that the facility of scribe should be allowed to any person with benchmark disability as defined under section 2(r) of the RPwD Act, 2016. Therefore Benchmark disability refers to having at least 40% disability of any type as recognised under the Act, and certified by a certifying authority.

The counsel for the petitioner contended before the court that the petitioner is not claiming any benefit of reservation under the disability category. Under section 20 of the Act which provides for equality of opportunity and no discrimination in employment based on disability, even disabilities which are not specified disabilities can also qualify for certain benefits. The act clearly states that no person with disability should be discriminated against and reasonable accommodation should be provided by the government.

It was argued that the UPSC exam is meant to test the petitioner’s intellectual eligibility and not his physical eligibility, therefore it would be a reasonable accommodation to provide the candidate with the benefit of a scribe. Even Institutions like ICAI( Institute of Chartered Accountants of India ) recognise this disability and also provide for writers.

Justice Chandrachud stated that there is no need to get into the question if the petitioner suffered from benchmark specified disability, since the only relief that the petitioner asked is the benefit of a scribe. People not under benchmark disability are still liable for other benefits. If the petitioner is deprived of appearing in an examination for a position in the government, it will also be covered by the principle of discrimination.

The Counsel for the Centre submitted that it is impossible for them to increase the threshold through which scribes are provided, else it would lead to innumerable applications for scribes. A minimum requirement of 40% disability is required, else the guidelines will be meaningless.

Justice Chandrachud stated that this case needs to be seen in a broader canvas. He questioned the counsel representing the Ministry of Social justice and Empowerment, as to what would happen in cases of accidents, where the person suffers from a disability, is not governed by the Act but still needs a scribe. He suggested that the Ministry needs to revisit the guidelines and come out with a better policy.

The Court on Thursday, while taking up the matter again, stated that the Government of India while forming the guidelines, did not bear in mind the students with disabilities which don’t fall under the category of benchmark disability but need a scribe. Chandrachud, J., stated that the Court understands the possibility of misuse, and doesn’t wish to open pandora’s box, but provisions need to exist for these situations.

— Srishti Ojha