Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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