Facts in Brief A bare perusal of the relevant excerpts of the Complaint based on which the FIR was registered would be sufficient to explain the background of the case. The same is as follows: - “The Vinod Dua Show on YouTube, has made unfounded and bizarre allegations (details of particular moments are provided below) by stating following facts at 5 minutes and 9 seconds of the video, he has stated that Narendra Modi has used deaths and terror attacks to garner votes. At 5 minutes and 45 seconds of the video, he claims that the government does not have enough testing facilities and has made false statements about the availability of the Personal Protective Kits (PPE) and has stated that there is no sufficient information on those. Further, he also went on to state that ventilators and sanitizer exports were stopped only on 24th March 2020…..Unless strict action is taken, it will result in unrest in public and go against public tranquillity. Hence, you are requested to take strict appropriate legal action against Mr. Vinod Dua and punish him accordingly.” I think that the contents are self-explanatory. Mr. Vinod Dua made certain comments in relation to Mr. Narendra Modi and the Government. Those comments were considered to have potential to create “unrest in public” and “against public tranquillity” by the Complainant and an FIR was registered. Mr. Vinod Dua approached the Court for quashing of this FIR against him. Important Observations of the Court with respect to S. 268, 501 and 505 of IPC 1. With respect to Section 268 (Public Nuisance) of IPC, it was held by the Court that Section 268 merely provides for the definition of “Public Nuisance” and is not a penal provision in in itself and further, no case has been made out involving element of Public Nuisance. 2. With respect to Section 501 (Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory) of IPC, it was held by the Court that: - a. Cognizance with respect to Chapter XXI of the IPC wherein S. 501 lies can only be taken by a Court upon a Complaint made by the person aggrieved and even otherwise, there is nothing defamatory in the statements made by Mr. Vinod Dua.b. The Court went on to hold that the statements of Mr. Vinod Dua would be covered by the 2nd and 3rd exceptions to S. 499 of IPC. The 2nd exception provides that expressing opinion about public conduct of public servants is not defamation. The 3rd exception provides that it is not defamation to express any opinion with respect to conduct of any person touching any public opinion. 3. The case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, (1962) Supp. 2 SCR 769, was cited by the Court to explain that every citizen has a right to criticize the steps taken by the Government and its functionaries, as long as such person does not incite people to violence against the Government or with an intention to create public disorder. The words or expressions used must have a pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder to attract Section 505 of IPC. Hence, according to the Court, ingredients of Section 505 were not made out in the present case. Observations of the Court relating Section 124A (Sedition) Before adverting any further, let us peruse S.124A of IPC: - “Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.Explanation 1.—The expression “disaffection” includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.Explanation 2.—Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this s