The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted interim protection to journalist Siddharth Varadarajan and his team at The Wire news portal from “any coercive action” in connection with an FIR registered against them in Assam for publishing a report on the alleged loss of IAF aircraft during Operation Sindoor.
Varadarajan and his team were booked under various offences, particularly Section 152 of the newly enacted BNS that has replaced the sedition law and entails life imprisonment.
While granting interim protection, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was of the view that custodial interrogation of the journalists was not required, though they would have to cooperate with the investigation.
The bench tagged the issue with another petition pending before a bench headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, in which the constitutionality of Section 152 has been challenged by a former army officer, based on which the court had issued a notice to the Union government.
“During the course of the hearing, we are informed that the vires of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, are also under challenge in writ petition (C) No.720/2025, titled S.G. Vombatkere vs Union of India, in which notice has been issued on 08.08.2025 by a bench presided over by hon’ble the Chief Justice of India.
“Issue notice, returnable on 07.10.2025…. Meanwhile, the members of the petitioner — foundation as well as petitioner No. 2 (Vardarajan) against whom FIR No. 181/2025, has been registered on 11.07.2025, at PS Morigaon, Assam, under Sections 152, 197(1)(d) and 353(1)(b) of the BNS, 2023, may join the
investigation as and when required, however, no coercive action shall be taken against them,” the bench said in the order.
While senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan appeared for the petitioners, solicitor-general Tushar Mehta, appearing for both the Centre and the Assam government, opposed the plea for interim protection. He argued that journalists cannot be treated as a “separate class”.
Ramakrishnan argued that Section 152 was “vague” and not clearly defined, leading to its abuse by police. “Is the potentiality of abuse a ground to declare a law unconstitutional? Show us an authority on that. There’s a difference between implementation and power to legislate,” Justice Bagchi said.
The bench wondered how the legislature should be expected to define what is an act of endangering sovereignty, as it will lead to a “big danger”.
Ramakrishnan argued that the law has the potential to target the media and has a chilling effect on free speech and expression, prompting the bench to remark: “Any provision in penal law can be misused.”