Journalist Mamta Tripathi granted interim protection by Supreme Court in UP Police FIR over alleged defamatory video report

While observing that criminal cases can’t be slapped against journalists merely because their writings are perceived as criticism of the government, the Supreme Court today granted interim protection against coercive steps to journalist Mamta Tripathi booked over an alleged defamatory video report dated September 23, 2023, published by Dainik Bhaskar.

A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti passed the order, stating, “The matter stands deferred to…In the meantime, coercive steps should not be taken against the petitioner on account of FIR No. 281/2023”.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Mamta Tripathi, contended that it is a case of pure harassment of journalists in Uttar Pradesh, as every time the petitioner does a report, an FIR is registered. He argued that the entire case pertains to a story on Dainik Bhaskar’s portal, which the news organization stands by. The entitythath is stated to have been defamed (a company called Silver Touch) has not filed the case and Section 420 IPC (cheating) has been invoked only to make it a cognizable case, Dave added.

The senior counsel also referred to a communication by Dainik Bhaskar, which mentioned that the video report by Tripathi was factually correct, but the link thereto was removed from Dainik Bhaskar’s website due to some issues with the presentation.

Sr AAG Garima Prashad, for the UP government, submitted that the state was not represented in the earlier writ proceedings wherein Tripathi was granted interim protection. Further, the said writ petition was filed after the Allahabad High Court refused to quash the FIR impugned in the present case. Pointing out that Tripathi is not appearing before the trial court, Prashad sought 1 week to place the entire facts before the court.

Hearing Prashad, Justice Roy probed Dave as to whether the High Court order was disclosed in the writ proceedings where another bench of the court granted interim protection to Tripathi. In reply, Dave said that the subject FIR was mentioned.

Ultimately, the bench proposed two options to Prashad: (i) where one week was to be given, subject to the condition that no coercive steps (like arrest) would be taken against Tripathi, and (ii) where the notice was to be issued and whatever status quo direction was deemed necessary would be passed. Since she chose the first, the bench passed the interim protection order, recording that the case papers be furnished to Prashad by the petitioner’s counsel.

Briefly put, the FIR was registered against Tripathi under Sections 120B, 420, and 501 of IPC and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Pursuant thereto, a chargesheet was filed and she was summoned by the concerned CJM (as an accused) on May 3, 2024. Seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings, Tripathi moved the Allahabad High Court, however, was denied relief. However, the High Court granted Tripathi the liberty to seek bail and discharge before the trial court.

Earlier, a bench of Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and KV Viswanathan granted interim protection to Tripathi in another FIR registered over her article(s) alleging caste discrimination in the administration of the Uttar Pradesh government.

Prior to that, journalist Abhishek Upadhyay, who sought quashing of an FIR registered by UP Police over a story exploring caste dynamics in UP State administration, was also granted interim protection by the Court, observing that criminal cases can’t be slapped against journalists merely because their writings are perceived as criticism of the government.