Latest Published Story on Live Law: "Supreme Court Stays Conviction And Sentence Of Journalist For Offences Under UAPA, Sedition Law"

The Supreme Court recently stayed the conviction and sentence of one journalist under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and Section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code. The bench, comprising of Justices UU Lalit and K M Joseph, also granted bail to the journalist who had spent 3 years in jail.

The journalist was convicted by the trial court and was sentenced to 3 years in prison for his alleged involvement in a Maoist movement in Madhya Pradesh. He was accused of being a member of a frontal organization of Maoists and of conspiring to wage war against the State. The Madhya Pradesh High Court had also upheld his conviction and sentence.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had not examined the material evidence on record in detail before affirming the conviction and sentence of the journalist. The bench further noted that as per the High Court's judgment, the journalist's only involvement was in organizing an event to commemorate the alleged death of a Maoist leader. Based on this event, the High Court had found him guilty of sedition and membership of a terrorist organization.

However, while staying the conviction and sentence, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had not applied the legal principle of evidence and the provision of law correctly in this case. The Court also observed that the journalist's involvement in the event was not sufficient enough to prove his link to a terrorist organization or to the alleged Maoist movement. The Court also noted that there was no indication that the journalist had participated in or conspired to wage war against the State.

The Supreme Court also took into account the journalist's plea that he was only doing his job as a journalist and reporting on the event, which was open for the public to attend. The Court stated that the mere presence of the journalist at the event could not be considered as his participation in any unlawful activity. The Court also noted that the evidence on record did not show any direct or indirect involvement of the journalist with any illegal activities or organizations.

The Supreme Court further held that the provisions of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code and the UAPA had been invoked without any specific or cogent material to warrant their application in this case. The Court also emphasized that provisions of sedition and terror laws must be applied with caution and only when there is sufficient evidence to show their application.

In light of these observations, the Supreme Court stayed the conviction and sentence of the journalist and granted him bail. The Court also directed the journalist to surrender his passport and report to the local police station once every week. The Court also stated that the journalist was not allowed to travel overseas without the permission of the Court. The matter will be heard again after the summer break.

The decision of the Supreme Court in this case is a significant one as it reaffirms the principle that provisions of sedition and terror laws must be applied with caution and only when there is sufficient evidence to show their application. It also emphasizes the importance of protecting the freedom of the press and the right to report on events of public interest. The judgment also highlights the need for proper examination of evidence before convicting and sentencing a person under stringent laws. This decision will serve as a guide for the lower courts while applying the provisions of sedition and terror laws in the future.