Supreme Court Shields The Wire, Addresses Legal Threat to Free Press

Interim Order Follows Challenge to Section 152 of BNS over Constitutionality

August 13, 2025

The Supreme Court has ordered that the Foundation for Independent Journalism, which owns The Wire, and its founding editor Siddharth Varadarajan must be protected from any police action that could involve arrest, detention, or other measures intended to compel compliance in connection with an FIR filed by the Assam Police. The order puts the law’s constitutional validity before the court and concerns press freedom and the state’s power to act against journalists.

The FIR was registered in Morigaon, Assam, on July 11, under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), following a complaint by a local Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader. It concerned an article published on The Wire’s website on June 28, which reported remarks by India’s defence attache to Indonesia, Captain Shiv Kumar, at a seminar in Indonesia. He stated that the Indian Air Force lost fighter jets to Pakistan during Operation Sindoor on May 7 because of constraints set by the political leadership on attacking certain targets. The report included the Indian Embassy in Jakarta’s statement that his comments were taken out of context.

The bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi granted interim protection while hearing a writ petition by the Foundation and Varadarajan, as reported by The Wire. The petitioners challenged Section 152 of the BNS, arguing that although the provision avoids the term sedition, it functions in the same way as Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, which the Supreme Court had previously put on hold in 2023. Section 152 creates a criminal offence for any act or speech that is seen as exciting disaffection against the government, even if it does not call for violence.

The court also issued notice to the Union and Assam governments and tagged the case with a pending matter before the Chief Justice that raises the same constitutional issue.

Senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, representing the petitioners, argued that Section 152 is vaguely worded and broadly defined, which stifles free speech, especially for the media. Justice Bagchi acknowledged that vagueness can be a valid ground to strike down a law, while the Solicitor General argued that the media should not receive special treatment. The bench responded that the issue concerned protecting the right to free speech while addressing the state’s interest in maintaining public order.

Justice Kant observed that custodial interrogation was unnecessary for cases involving articles published by news organisations. The court noted that the article in question was a factual report that included both the original comments by the defence official and the embassy’s clarification. The background also includes an earlier incident on May 9, when The Wire’s website was blocked in India for several hours after publishing an article on Rafale jets in Operation Sindoor. Similar disruptions had affected other media outlets.

The case could establish a precedent for how courts treat laws that are alleged to replicate sedition under new names. If the Supreme Court rules that Section 152 is unconstitutional on grounds of vagueness or its effect on free speech, it could set a binding interpretation that limits the state’s ability to use such provisions against journalists. That would have a direct impact on press freedom by narrowing the range of laws that can be used to criminally investigate reporting on matters of public interest.

The case also addresses the scope of the state’s authority to restrict media activity in the name of security and public order. Courts have historically acknowledged that governments may impose “reasonable” restrictions, yet have also struck down measures that go beyond necessity or that silence criticism. By admitting the challenge to Section 152, the court is recognising that the scope and wording of a criminal provision can influence the protection available to constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

If the bench hearing the tagged case finds that Section 152’s broad and vague language fails constitutional scrutiny, it would reaffirm that laws must be precise and foreseeable in their application. Such a ruling would reinforce the principle that journalists can report on official statements and policy matters without the risk of arrest or prosecution under ambiguous terms, and it would guide legislatures in drafting laws that deal with fundamental rights.

The interim protection granted here signals the court’s concern about the potential misuse of the provision while the constitutional question is being considered. This is important because interim orders often influence how lower authorities behave in similar cases, discouraging coercive action against journalists until the law’s validity is resolved. That practical effect can preserve space for reporting on contentious issues, at least in the short term.

You have just read a News Briefing by Newsreel Asia, written to cut through the noise and present a single story for the day that matters to you. Certain briefings, based on media reports, seek to keep readers informed about events across India, others offer a perspective rooted in humanitarian concerns and some provide our own exclusive reporting. We encourage you to read the News Briefing each day. Our objective is to help you become not just an informed citizen, but an engaged and responsible one.