The Supreme Court on Tuesday restrained the Assam Police from taking any coercive action against senior journalist Siddharth Varadarajan in connection with an FIR over an article published on The Wire concerning “Operation Sindoor.” The report detailed India’s May strikes on terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir following the April 22 Pahalgam attack.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi also issued notice to the Centre on a Public Interest Litigation filed by the Foundation for Independent Journalism, which runs The Wire, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The provision penalises acts “endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India” with imprisonment ranging from seven years to life and a fine.
Senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, representing the petitioners, argued that the section is “vague” and “overbroad,” creating a chilling effect on free speech, particularly on the media’s right to report and question the government. She submitted that “vagueness” itself is recognised as a constitutional ground for striking down a penal provision.
The bench, however, observed that the possibility of abuse alone may not suffice to invalidate a law. Justice Bagchi remarked, “There’s a difference between implementation and the power to legislate. Any provision in penal law can be misused.” Justice Kant added that custodial interrogation may not be necessary in cases concerning published articles or programmes.
The court queried Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on whether terms like “endangering sovereignty” could be statically defined, warning that overbroad definitions could risk stifling legitimate political dissent. Mehta contended that the law applies uniformly and media cannot be treated as a separate class. Justice Bagchi responded that the issue was about balancing free speech with public order.
The court directed both Varadarajan and members of the Foundation to cooperate with the investigation, while keeping police action in abeyance pending further hearing on the constitutional challenge.
