Right to Know FIR Status Is Integral to Liberty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Liberty to Ajeet Bharti Youtuber Seek Details from Police on Alleged Defamatory Content Against CJI

Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Ajeet Bharti v. State of Punjab and Others, disposed of a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Senior Superintendent of Police, SAS Nagar, to ascertain whether any FIR has been registered against him based on alleged defamatory content targeting the Chief Justice of India. The Court refused to pass anticipatory protective orders, noting that there was no confirmation of any FIR naming the petitioner.

Justice Subhas Mehla observed that while the investigation into offensive online videos is ongoing, there is currently no evidence on record identifying the petitioner as an accused. However, the Court acknowledged the petitioner’s fundamental right to seek information about potential criminal proceedings impacting his liberty.

“At This Stage, It Cannot Be Ascertained That The Petitioner Is An Accused In Any Case”: Court Denies Pre-Emptive Protection

In a nuanced observation on balancing personal liberty and the investigatory prerogative of the State, the Punjab and Haryana High Court noted that mere apprehension based on media reports is insufficient to invoke pre-emptive judicial protection. However, the Court recognized the petitioner’s limited right to seek clarity from law enforcement.

The judgment arises from CRWP, wherein petitioner Ajeet Bharti approached the Court seeking anticipatory directions in light of alleged FIRs following the publication of online videos critical of a courtroom incident involving the Chief Justice of India on 06.10.2025.

The petitioner, a content creator, invoked Article 226 claiming that various FIRs may have been filed in Punjab after his social media videos commenting on a high-profile courtroom incident involving the Chief Justice went viral. He claimed to have learned of these FIRs via a national newspaper article but was unable to access any formal information or documentation confirming his status as an accused.

On the prior date of hearing, petitioner’s counsel limited the relief sought to seeking information regarding any such FIRs that may have been registered in Punjab. The case was adjourned to allow the State to verify and report the factual position.

The key legal questions before the Court included:

• Whether a person has a constitutional right under Article 226 to seek information regarding potential FIRs registered against them;
• Whether anticipatory protection could be granted where no formal accusation has been disclosed by the State;
• To what extent the State is obligated to share investigation-related data at a pre-FIR stage or at a stage where identity of accused is not confirmed.

The respondent-State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, submitted that while several abusive and derogatory social media links were under investigation, it was not feasible to ascertain the identity of any specific accused from the links available at this stage.

Crucially, the State submitted: “It is not feasible at this stage to ascertain the person who has been arraigned as an accused in FIRs registered, from the links available.” It was further confirmed that one FIR had been registered at SAS Nagar, but there was no clear linkage to the petitioner as of the hearing date.

Justice Subhas Mehla recorded the government’s submission and observed: “The respondent-State has taken cognizance of the matter... but at this point of time, the investigation is undergoing and it cannot be ascertained that the petitioner in the matter is an accused or not in any case.”

Accordingly, the Court ruled that the petitioner could furnish relevant video details to the Senior Superintendent of Police, SAS Nagar, via email, and “get the details regarding the FIR against him”. The petition was disposed without any coercive direction or costs.

The High Court did not issue any anticipatory relief since there was no concrete material on record implicating the petitioner or suggesting imminent coercive action. However, by allowing the petitioner to directly contact the police and seek FIR details, the Court subtly reaffirmed the principle that:

“Right to Know” about one’s criminal implication is an inherent part of Article 21 protection.

The Court struck a balance between unsubstantiated apprehension and state accountability. By avoiding interference in ongoing investigations while enabling a citizen to verify their status under law, the ruling reflects judicial restraint coupled with fundamental rights sensitivity.

Notably, no precedents were cited, but the case operates in the larger jurisprudential framework developed by the Supreme Court in Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India (2016), which held that the accused has a right to be informed of FIRs through proper channels, including publication on official websites.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in this case, refused to speculate on the petitioner’s criminal liability in absence of concrete evidence and upheld the sanctity of the investigative process. At the same time, it ensured that the petitioner is not left remediless in seeking confirmation or clarity on his legal status. The judgment exemplifies constitutional equilibrium — protection of individual liberty without unwarranted obstruction of lawful investigations.

Date of Decision: 03 November 2025