‘Assam Police vs Siddharth Varadarajan’: The Case in Light of SC Order

In a recent case of a senior journalist, the Supreme Court of India has restrained the Assam Police from taking coercive steps against him, over an FIR linked to an article on 'Operation Sindoor'. This was not merely a routine interim protection order; it was a signal from the apex court that the case touches upon a critical intersection of national security laws and press freedom.

What Sparked the FIR

On July 11, Morigaon Police in Assam booked senior journalist Siddharth Varadarajan, the Founding Editor of The Wire, under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) after The Wire published a piece titled 'IAF Lost Fighter Jets to Pak Because of Political Leadership’s Constraints’: Indian Defence Attache.

The article quoted India’s Defence Attaché to Indonesia, who had made the remarks during a university seminar in the country, and also carried the Indian Embassy’s official rebuttal. The statements concerned the IAF’s operational limitations during Operation Sindoor, a military action targeting terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.

Crucially, the petitioners highlighted that multiple other news outlets reported the same remarks, yet no similar FIRs have been filed against them, raising immediate questions of selective targeting.

Section 152 BNS 

Section 152 criminalises any act that “endangers the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India” and can carry life imprisonment. On paper, it addresses armed rebellion and separatism. In practice, its vague terms, “encouraging feelings of separatist activities” or “subversive activities”, give authorities broad discretion to pursue cases against journalists whose reporting displeases political leadership.

The Foundation for Independent Journalism (FIJ), which owns The Wire, has challenged the provision’s constitutional validity, arguing it violates Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 for being overbroad and unreasonable.

The Varadarajan case is not an isolated incident. Across states, journalists have faced FIRs, arrests, and legal harassment for stories that cast the government in a critical light. The most troubling aspect is the use of national security laws as a blunt instrument, ensuring that even if a journalist eventually wins in court, the process itself becomes the punishment.

What the Supreme Court Did and Didn’t Do?

The bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi granted interim relief by restraining coercive action. However, the FIR still stands, and Varadarajan, along with FIJ members, must cooperate with the investigation.

Importantly, the Court tagged this case with another pending challenge to Section 152 BNS, meaning that its final verdict could set a precedent on how India balances national security with press freedom under the new criminal code.

Military affairs, foreign policy, and defence preparedness are matters of vital public interest. But under laws like Section 152, they risk becoming no-go zones unless filtered through the government’s narrative.

This is not just Assam Police vs Siddharth Varadarajan; it is State Power vs Independent Journalism. The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling on Section 152 will decide whether India has truly moved beyond colonial sedition laws or merely replaced them with new language serving the same purpose.

Until then, the case will stand as a warning: in today’s India, reporting the truth can land a journalist in the crosshairs of a national security law. If the judiciary fails to draw a clear line between legitimate reporting and acts that genuinely threaten sovereignty, the chilling effect on investigative journalism will deepen. 

ALSO READ: Press Freedom at Risk? Journalist’s Detention Sparks Uproar