In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India is scheduled to consider a plea from journalist Abhishek Upadhyay, who is seeking the quashing of a first information report (FIR) filed against him. Upadhyay, known for his investigative reporting on the alleged misappropriation of donations intended for the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, has argued that the FIR is a retaliatory measure linked to his journalistic work.
The FIR accuses Upadhyay of involvement in a road rage incident and includes charges under the stringent SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Upadhyay contends that this case is a counteraction to his reporting on corruption within the Ram Mandir Trust and the Uttar Pradesh administration. The matter was presented before a Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana. The court has agreed to hear the case on August 25, contingent on the resolution of any procedural defects in the petition.
Upadhyay’s counsel highlighted the series of legal pressures faced by the journalist, stating, “Multiple FIRs have been filed against him, and now an FIR under the stringent provisions of the SC/ST Act has also been filed. The police raided his house on the 20th. Yesterday, they arrived again at 5 o’clock. I have filed my writ petition and request that it be listed today or tomorrow, if possible.” In response, the CJI consented to schedule the hearing for the following day, subject to petition corrections.
In addition to his coverage of the Ram Mandir donation issues, Upadhyay has published reports regarding the alleged corrupt acquisition of agricultural land in Bhadohi by an IAS officer linked to the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister. This land transaction, valued at approximately ₹20 crore, involved the officer reportedly being listed as having a “business” profession.
According to the FIR filed on August 18, a two-wheeler rider accused Upadhyay of hitting his vehicle and subsequently threatening and verbally abusing him. Upadhyay faces charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The journalist has refuted these allegations, asserting that he was simply returning home with his young daughter when the incident occurred. He claims that the motorcyclist stopped him and caused a disturbance.
More Read
In his plea, Upadhyay maintains that there was no collision or altercation as described in the FIR, suggesting that the incident was orchestrated by state authorities as a reprisal for his investigative work. Upon discovering the allegations, Upadhyay mobilized his journalist peers to seek CCTV footage from nearby businesses to corroborate his version of events. However, he learned that police had already requested the deletion or withholding of such footage.
Furthermore, Upadhyay’s plea questions the legitimacy of the complainant, noting discrepancies in the motorcycle registration details. The FIR references a Splendor, but records indicate that the vehicle in question, a TVS Apache RTR 160 4V, is registered to a different individual than the complainant.
The Supreme Court’s decision on this matter could have significant implications for press freedom and the use of legal tools in response to investigative journalism.
