The Supreme Court has extended interim protection to The Wire’s founding editor Siddharth Varadarajan in his plea challenging Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The Court noted that the petitioners have not been contacted by police and directed them to join the probe only when required.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday extended interim protection to the Foundation running the online news portal The Wire in its plea challenging Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), a provision introduced to replace the sedition law under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that the petitioners had not been approached by any police authority to join the ongoing investigation.
Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, representing the petitioners, submitted that despite the pendency of proceedings, they had received no communication from the police. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union of India, said he was unaware of the facts and sought time to file a reply.
He added that the petitioners were effectively seeking a stay on the provision. The Court observed that since the petitioners had not received any information from investigating officers, they were unable to participate in the probe.
The Bench directed that
“as and when required, the petitioners shall join the investigation.”
The interim protection granted earlier was ordered to continue.
Earlier on August 22, the Supreme Court had granted interim protection from coercive action to The Wire’s founding editor along with other members of the petitioner-Foundation, following a fresh sedition FIR registered by Assam Police under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Notably, on August 12, the Court had also granted interim protection to The Wire’s founding editor in connection with another FIR lodged by Assam Police under Section 152, a provision alleged to have effectively revived the repealed sedition law.
The FIR against Siddharth Varadarajan was registered after the publication of an article in The Wire on Operation Sindoor, under which India reportedly targeted terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir in May, in retaliation for the April 22 Pahalgam attack.
The Bench also issued notice on a petition filed by the Foundation for Independent Journalism and Varadarajan challenging the constitutional validity of Section 152, which criminalises acts that allegedly endanger the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.
The writ petition, filed through AoR Bharat Gupta and drafted by Advocate Stuti Rai, challenged Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), described as the new “sedition” provision, after The Wire’s founding editor was booked by Assam Police over the news report.
The plea also seeks protection from coercive action in connection with the FIR, which invokes Sections 152, 197(1)(d), and 353(1)(b) of the BNS.
Section 152 penalises acts “endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India” and is substantially similar in language and effect to the colonial-era Section 124A IPC.
The older sedition law is already under constitutional challenge in S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court, by its interim order dated May 11, 2022, restrained registration of FIRs under Section 124A until the case is decided.
The petition argues that Section 152 is being misused to sidestep the previous order and target journalists and media organisations.
The FIR under challenge stems from a June 29 report on The Wire, which quoted India’s defence attaché in Indonesia regarding the loss of IAF fighter jets during an operation, allegedly due to political constraints.
The story included the Indian Embassy’s full clarification stating that the remarks were taken out of context. The petition notes that the same seminar and remarks were widely covered by other national media outlets.
It alleges that the complaint, filed by a ruling party functionary in Assam, falsely claims misquotation and accuses The Wire of a pattern of “misleading” reports.
The FIR itself is not publicly accessible, but the petition warns that similar complaints may have been filed elsewhere.
Calling Section 152 “vague” and “prone to abuse” like its IPC predecessor, the plea argues that it violates Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution.
The petition further states that even if a report were inaccurate, prosecuting journalists under a life-imprisonment offence would be “grossly disproportionate” and unconstitutional.
The plea seeks the Court’s intervention not only to strike down Section 152 but also to lay down guidelines to prevent the misuse of criminal law against journalists.
The petition emphasises that
“no immunity is sought, only safeguards to ensure prosecutions are bona fide and not reprisals for critical reporting.”
Case Title:
Foundation for Independent Journalism v. Union of India
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Anti-Caste Discrimination
