SC Extends Protection Against Arrest To 2 UP Journalists

The Supreme Court of India has granted a 4-week extension to 2 journalists, Abhishek Upadhyay and Mamta Tripathi, preventing Uttar Pradesh Police from arresting them in connection with multiple FIRs filed against them.

These charges stem from an article and posts they made on the social media platform X.

Order to Extend Protection

A bench consisting of Justices MM Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal ruled in favor of the two journalists, extending the previous order that prevented any coercive action, including arrests. This order will remain in place for an additional four weeks, allowing the journalists the opportunity to seek legal remedies to quash the FIRs filed against them in various locations across Uttar Pradesh.

FIRs & Legal Battles

Abhishek Upadhyay’s article, which focused on the “caste dynamics of the general administration” in Uttar Pradesh, specifically identified individuals from a particular caste who held significant positions within the state government. In response to his article, several FIRs were filed against him, accusing him of offenses that include “hurting religious sentiments.”

Similarly, Mamta Tripathi faced multiple FIRs after posting certain content on X, a platform where she shared her views. A lawyer representing Upadhyay stated that non-bailable penal provisions were invoked against both journalists, based on the accusation of offending religious sentiments. Given the gravity of the charges, the lawyer argued that both journalists required protection from coercive state action.

Court’s Emphasis On Press Freedom

The bench emphasized the importance of press freedom, highlighting the protection of journalistic rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. In a previous order, the Supreme Court had stated, “In democratic nations, freedom to express one’s views is respected. The rights of the journalists are protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Merely because writings of a journalist are perceived as criticism of the Government, criminal cases should not be slapped against the writer.”

This statement reflects the Court’s concern about the potential misuse of law to stifle free expression, especially when it involves journalists simply carrying out their professional duties.

Following this, the Court also extended similar protection to Mamta Tripathi, preventing any coercive action against her as well. Both journalists now have the legal space to challenge the FIRs filed against them without the immediate threat of arrest or harassment.

Conclusion

The court’s decision is a significant affirmation of the rights of journalists to express their views freely, even when their work may be critical of the government. It underscores the importance of safeguarding press freedom and ensuring that journalists can perform their role without fear of unjust legal action.

The 4-week extension gives the journalists time to pursue legal avenues to address the charges against them, further cementing the judiciary’s role in protecting democratic freedoms.