"Section 153A of the IPC stipulates words - either spoken or written & 505 stipulates publication and reporting", Singh says.
He is arguing that 505 (2) does not apply to Vinod Dua's case as his was a youtube channel.
Singh now cites Bilal Ahmed Kaloo vs State Of Andhra Pradesh 1995 (1) SCR 411.
I want to say that 153A & 505(2) IPC almost identical.
Singh begins reading the relevant excerpts of the case.
"Common element in both provisions"
Justice Lalit: You have another prayer.
Singh: Yes, that pertains to guidelines.
If the press is not allowed to be free, our democracy is in threat - if we are unable to hold it.
Justice Lalit: Effect of representation the court has been noted in the Kedar Nath Judgment. Will this have effect on Quashing of the FIR (which you have prayed for) or will it be used in matters of evidence against the accused?
...We have made it clear that invoking of section 124(A) of IPC (sedition) requires certain guidelines to be followed as per the earlier judgement of the apex court" - Singh finishes reading out case which relied upon Kedar Nath Singh.
The Court in the case filed by Bhushan stated
"Someone making a statement to criticise the government does not invoke an offence under sedition or defamation law. ..."
Singh refers to observations made by top court in plea filed by #PrashantBhushan seeking sacking of special director Rakesh Asthana in view of serious charges of corruption levelled against him.
Singh reads the excerpt of judgment in the balwant singh case
"....we find it difficult to hold that upon the raising of such casual slogans, a couple of times without any other act whatsoever the charge of sedition can be founded"
Singh now cites, Balwant Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab:
"This was the case of when the Khalistan movement was at its peak"
Singh: "Any criticism of the Government cannot be sedition unless instigates violence. Moreover, If I criticise the Prime Minister, does not come under criticism of the Government"