SC grants relief to journalist who reported Ram Mandir theft
What's the story
The Supreme Court has granted interim relief from arrest to journalist Abhishek Upadhyay in a road rage case. The court also sought the Uttar Pradesh government's response to Upadhyay's plea seeking quashing of the FIR against him. He alleged that the case was filed as a counter against his investigative reporting on Ram Mandir Trust and alleged corruption in the Uttar Pradesh administration.
Legal proceedings
Matter to be heard on September 7
According to Bar and Bench, a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued a notice to the Uttar Pradesh government.
The court also ordered that no coercive action be taken against Upadhyay till further orders.
The matter will be heard next on September 7.
Reporting controversy
Upadhyay's investigation into IAS officer close to UP CM
Apart from his reporting on Ram Mandir donation embezzlement, Upadhyay had also done an investigation on an IAS officer close to the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister.
The report alleged that the officer bought agricultural land at Bhadohi in 2023 for approximately ₹20 crore and was shown as having the profession of "business."
Senior Advocate Pradeep Rai, appearing for Upadhyay, argued that the FIR was lodged on "fictitious" grounds.
Plea details
FIR lodged on fictitious grounds: Plea
The FIR against Upadhyay was filed on August 18 by a two-wheeler rider who alleged that Upadhyay hit his vehicle and threatened him.
The journalist was booked under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
In his plea, Upadhyay claimed he was returning home with his daughter when a motorcyclist stopped his car and created a ruckus.
He denied any confrontation, claiming it was a staged incident by state authorities in retaliation for his reporting.
Evidence tampering
Allegations of tampering with evidence
Upon learning about the allegations, Upadhyay asked his journalist colleagues to check for CCTV footage from nearby shops.
He found out that police had already approached some shops and compelled them to delete/not provide relevant CCTV footage.
The owner of the two-wheeler is not the complainant, but another person, it was pointed out.