Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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