NEW DELHI: Protecting a journalist who is facing a criminal case for writing what was perceived to be against Uttar Pradesh govt, Supreme Court said the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression should be respected in a democracy and criticising govt should not be grounds for initiating criminal prosecution of writers and scribes.
A bench of justices Hrishikesh Roy and S V N Bhatti restrained the UP govt from any coercive action against the journalist who had published an article with casteist tilt on the officers deployed in responsible positions in the state after which an FIR was lodged against him.
"In democratic nations, freedom to express one's views are respected. The rights of journalists are protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Merely because writings of a journalist are perceived as criticism of govt, criminal cases should not be slapped against the writer," the bench said.
SC's order is on the line of its numerous verdicts recognising dissent as a "symbol of a vibrant democracy". Emphasising that the journalists and media houses should be protected, the apex court in March had held that courts should refrain from passing an ex-parte restraint order against media houses without examining prima facie merits of the allegations.
In this case, journalist Abhishek Upadhyaya moved SC through his lawyer Anoop Prakash Awasthi alleging that the state police filed an FIR, threatening him for publishing a story with the caption 'Yadav Raj versus Thakur Raj'. Apprehending arrest and other criminal cases , he sought protection from SC.
"The petitioner by his story attempted to point out dangers of caste bias in general administration of UP in various regimes and comparative discourses thereupon, however same has not gone well within the powerhouse of administration and a frivolous FIR has been filed against the petitioner and prelude of which is quoted here under which compares the current UP CM as incarnation of God and hence immune from any critical analysis ," the petition said.
Though the petitioner named Yogi Adityanath as a party but he told the court that the CM's name be deleted which was allowed. "In the meantime, coercive steps should not be taken against the petitioner in connection with the subject Article," the bench said in its order, protecting the Upadhyaya.
A bench of justices Hrishikesh Roy and S V N Bhatti restrained the UP govt from any coercive action against the journalist who had published an article with casteist tilt on the officers deployed in responsible positions in the state after which an FIR was lodged against him.
"In democratic nations, freedom to express one's views are respected. The rights of journalists are protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Merely because writings of a journalist are perceived as criticism of govt, criminal cases should not be slapped against the writer," the bench said.
SC's order is on the line of its numerous verdicts recognising dissent as a "symbol of a vibrant democracy". Emphasising that the journalists and media houses should be protected, the apex court in March had held that courts should refrain from passing an ex-parte restraint order against media houses without examining prima facie merits of the allegations.
In this case, journalist Abhishek Upadhyaya moved SC through his lawyer Anoop Prakash Awasthi alleging that the state police filed an FIR, threatening him for publishing a story with the caption 'Yadav Raj versus Thakur Raj'. Apprehending arrest and other criminal cases , he sought protection from SC.
"The petitioner by his story attempted to point out dangers of caste bias in general administration of UP in various regimes and comparative discourses thereupon, however same has not gone well within the powerhouse of administration and a frivolous FIR has been filed against the petitioner and prelude of which is quoted here under which compares the current UP CM as incarnation of God and hence immune from any critical analysis ," the petition said.
Though the petitioner named Yogi Adityanath as a party but he told the court that the CM's name be deleted which was allowed. "In the meantime, coercive steps should not be taken against the petitioner in connection with the subject Article," the bench said in its order, protecting the Upadhyaya.
You may also like
Anne Hathaway sends fans into complete meltdown as she confirms Princess Diaries 3 movie
Gogglebox star grilled on 'missing' accent as they're told 'lots of people are asking'
Maharashtra Cabinet Approves Green Integrated Data Centre Parks With ₹1.60 Lakh Crore Investment, Set To Attract Global Companies
Donald Trump Made Horrible Joke About Dead Rally Attendee: Report
