SC to Consider Journalist's Plea Against FIR in Road Rage Case Linked to Ram Temple Report
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to consider an early hearing of a plea filed by journalist Abhishek Upadhyay challenging an FIR registered against him by the Ghaziabad Police in an alleged road rage case. Upadhyay has previously reported on alleged irregularities in the handling of donations at the Ram temple in Ayodhya.
Appearing before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Upadhyay's counsel submitted that the police had also accused his client of other serious offences, including under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The CJI asked the lawyer to provide details of the case and said he would consider listing it for hearing on August 25.
In his plea, Upadhyay has claimed that the FIR is based on “concocted allegations” and is an attempt to harass him for his independent journalistic work. He has also contended that a copy of the FIR has not been supplied to him, and that the police were forcing nearby shopkeepers to delete CCTV footage of the relevant time.
The journalist's counsel argued that the road rage incident, which is the subject of the FIR, has no connection with his reporting on the Ram Temple donations. The plea seeks quashing of the FIR and protection from coercive action.
The Supreme Court's willingness to consider the early listing comes amid concerns over the use of criminal law against journalists and whistleblowers. Legal experts note that while the court has not yet issued any directions, the expeditious hearing of such pleas is essential to safeguard the freedom of the press and the right to a fair trial.
The case highlights the tension between law enforcement and investigative journalism, with the petitioner alleging that the FIR is a reprisal for his coverage of the temple's donation management. The Ram Temple in Ayodhya, a major religious site, has received substantial public donations, making any allegation of irregularity a matter of significant public interest.
Upadhyay's plea also raises procedural questions, including the alleged failure to supply the FIR copy and the reported pressure on witnesses. If substantiated, these actions could amount to a violation of his rights under the Criminal Procedure Code and the Constitution.
The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is a stringent law designed to protect marginalised communities from discrimination and violence. Its invocation in this case has drawn attention, with legal observers noting that the Act should not be misused to settle personal or professional scores.
As the matter awaits a listing decision, the Ghaziabad Police have not yet filed their response. The bench, led by the CJI, indicated that a decision on the listing will be made based on the details provided by the counsel. The court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations.
The case serves as a reminder of the legal safeguards available to individuals who face criminal action that they believe is motivated by malice or retaliation. The judiciary's role in scrutinising such FIRs is crucial to maintaining the rule of law and protecting fundamental rights, including the freedom of speech and expression.
This report will be updated as further developments occur in the Supreme Court proceedings.
