The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted interim protection from arrest to journalist Abhishek Upadhyay in connection with a road-rage FIR registered in Uttar Pradesh, while issuing notice to the State Government on his plea seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana directed that no coercive steps be taken against Upadhyay in the FIR already registered against him or in any subsequent FIR that may arise out of the same alleged occurrence.
“Notice be issued, returnable on September 7,” the Bench ordered, while making it clear that, pending further consideration, the petitioner shall remain insulated from coercive action in relation to the impugned FIR and any connected criminal case arising from the incident.
The Court simultaneously directed the Uttar Pradesh Police to furnish Upadhyay with a complete copy of the FIR registered at Indirapuram Police Station in Ghaziabad. The Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, was further directed to place a compliance report before the Court.
Upadhyay, who has undertaken investigative reporting on alleged financial irregularities concerning donations to the Ram Mandir and the Ayodhya Ram Mandir Trust, has alleged that the criminal case constitutes a retaliatory exercise intended to intimidate him on account of his journalistic work. His plea contends that the invocation of provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was part of an attempt to criminalise and silence his reporting concerning the Trust and alleged administrative improprieties in Uttar Pradesh.
The FIR came to be registered on August 18 pursuant to a complaint lodged by a two-wheeler rider. The complainant alleged that Upadhyay’s vehicle had struck his motorcycle from behind and that, following the alleged collision, Upadhyay threatened and abused him. The journalist was consequently booked under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita as well as the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Appearing for Upadhyay, Senior Advocate Pradeep Rai, also the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, submitted that the allegations forming the basis of the FIR were entirely fictitious and represented a colourable exercise of criminal law designed to victimise the journalist for his investigative reportage concerning Ayodhya. He further contended that the present proceedings were part of a broader pattern, pointing to other FIRs allegedly instituted against Upadhyay after the publication of earlier investigative reports.
The Bench, however, indicated that the allegations would have to be tested against the evidentiary record. Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that if a motorist were to collide with a motorcycle and thereafter subject the rider to caste-based abuse, such conduct could potentially attract penal consequences and would necessarily warrant investigation.
Rai categorically disputed the occurrence as alleged and submitted that objective evidence, particularly CCTV footage from the vicinity, would be material in determining what transpired. He therefore sought preservation and access to the relevant footage as part of a fair and impartial investigation.
According to Upadhyay’s petition, he was returning home after collecting his minor daughter from school when a motorcyclist allegedly approached his vehicle and created a disturbance. The journalist claims that, in view of his daughter’s presence in the car, he consciously avoided any confrontation and attempted to defuse the situation rather than engage with the motorcyclist.
The petition maintains that there was neither any collision nor any physical altercation between the parties and that the incident, as subsequently portrayed in the FIR, bears little resemblance to what actually occurred.
Upadhyay has further alleged that the entire episode was deliberately engineered and that the complainant was allegedly used as a proxy by State authorities in retaliation for his investigative reports.
The plea also raises concerns regarding the availability of electronic evidence. It states that, after becoming aware of the allegations, Upadhyay requested fellow journalists to make inquiries at commercial establishments situated near the purported scene of occurrence to ascertain the availability of CCTV footage. According to the petitioner, they were informed that police personnel had already approached certain establishments and allegedly directed or pressured them to delete, withhold or otherwise not preserve footage pertaining to the relevant period.
Another circumstance highlighted before the Court was the alleged discrepancy concerning ownership of the motorcycle. The petition asserts that the registered owner of the two-wheeler was not the individual who subsequently lodged the complaint.
The plea places the present prosecution within the larger context of Upadhyay’s investigative journalism. Apart from his reports concerning alleged irregularities in the handling of Ram Mandir donations, he had published a report relating to an IAS officer alleged to be close to the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister. The report purportedly examined the purchase of agricultural land in Bhadohi in 2023 for approximately ₹20 crore, with the concerned officer allegedly being described as engaged in “business”.
At this stage, the Supreme Court has confined itself to granting interim protection and calling for the State’s response, without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the allegations or the petitioner’s challenge to the FIR.
The matter will next be taken up on September 7.
The post Supreme Court grants protection to journalist Abhishek Upadhyay over Ram Mandir donation exposé, seeks UP response appeared first on India Legal.