MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection to Journalist Booked Over Articles on Caste Discrimination in Uttar Pradesh

24 October 2024 2:51 PM

By: sayum


"No Coercive Steps Against the Petitioner in Connection With the Subject Articles" – Supreme Court Provides Relief to Journalist Mamta Tripathi

Today on October 24, 2024, the Supreme Court of India granted interim protection to journalist Mamta Tripathi, who is facing multiple FIRs for her articles alleging caste discrimination within the Uttar Pradesh administration. The Court directed that no coercive action should be taken against Tripathi while the case is under review and issued a notice to the Uttar Pradesh government seeking its response.

A bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and K.V. Viswanathan passed the order in response to a petition filed by Tripathi, who has been named in four FIRs related to her journalistic work. The Court granted Tripathi temporary protection from arrest and other punitive measures while her plea to quash the criminal proceedings is considered.

"Issue Notice, Returnable in 4 Weeks": Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief

While dictating the order, Justice Gavai remarked, "Issue notice, returnable in 4 weeks... in the meantime, it is directed that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner in connection with the subject articles." The Court’s decision provides temporary relief to Tripathi, allowing her to continue her legal challenge without the immediate threat of arrest or further action by the state.

Mamta Tripathi, a journalist, is facing legal action for a series of articles that explore caste-related issues in the Uttar Pradesh administration. The FIRs lodged against her accuse her of defaming the state government by highlighting incidents of caste-based discrimination. Tripathi's petition challenges the validity of these criminal proceedings, arguing that they infringe upon her fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression.

Prior Precedent: Interim Protection to Abhishek Upadhyay for Similar Reporting

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant relief to Tripathi follows a similar case involving journalist Abhishek Upadhyay, who also faced legal action for his reporting on caste dynamics within the Uttar Pradesh government. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court had granted interim protection to Upadhyay, emphasizing that journalists should not face criminal proceedings solely because their work is critical of the government.

In its order protecting Upadhyay, a bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti observed, "In democratic nations, freedom to express one's views are 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."

Petitioner’s Arguments: FIRs a Form of Harassment

Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, representing Mamta Tripathi, argued that the multiple FIRs registered against her amount to harassment, stating that journalists like Tripathi and Upadhyay are being targeted for raising sensitive issues, including caste conflicts between Thakurs and Brahmins, and for highlighting instances such as District Magistrates misusing red lights on their vehicles.

Dave also pointed out that similar to Upadhyay's case, Tripathi directly approached the Supreme Court, claiming a violation of her fundamental rights. The Court had previously stayed one FIR against Tripathi in response to an earlier petition. Dave contended that the barrage of FIRs was aimed at silencing Tripathi's journalistic efforts, a tactic frequently used against reporters addressing sensitive issues in Uttar Pradesh.

Supreme Court Issues Notice to Uttar Pradesh Government

The Supreme Court bench, after considering the arguments, issued a notice to the Uttar Pradesh government and directed it to submit its response within four weeks. The Court’s interim order ensures that Tripathi is protected from coercive actions in connection with six articles she wrote, while her petition for quashing the FIRs is examined.

Interim Relief for Journalists Facing Legal Challenges

The Supreme Court’s intervention in Mamta Tripathi's case underscores its commitment to protecting the rights of journalists, particularly when they are targeted for critiquing government actions. The Court’s order aligns with its earlier stance that criminal proceedings should not be weaponized against journalists for exercising their right to free speech.

As the case unfolds, the outcome will likely have significant implications for press freedom, particularly in relation to journalists reporting on caste-based issues and governance in India.

Date of Decision: October 24, 2024

Mamta Tripathi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Latest Legal News