READ ORDER BELOW: 

The Allahabad High Court recently stayed FIR against a journalist booked by Uttar Pradesh Police for his news report on the poor condition of a government school in Lucknow

“A FIR seems to have been lodged with the malicious intent of teaching a lesson to the petitioner, for bringing out short comings of the school,” said a Division Bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava.

“The conduct of the prosecution… is tantamount to killing the messenger which clearly is not countenanced in the eyes of law,” the Allahabad High Court observed while staying FIR against a journalist.

“Once the shortcomings of the school have been brought out and the same do not conform to the provisions of the [RTE] Act, 2009 consequently, prima facie it emerges that the petitioner has done no wrong by indicating the said shortcomings and thus impugned First Information Report appears to be a malicious act on the part of the authorities against the petitioner, a journalist,” the Court added.

Continuing, the Court added that the Supreme Court has categorically held that journalistic freedom lies at the core of the freedom of speech and expression. Stating that “India’s freedom will rest safe as long as its journalists can speak truth to power without being chilled by a threat of reprisal”, the Allahabad High Court stayed FIR against journalist.

Journalist Amit Yadav had approached the Court seeking quashing of FIR registered against him on August 24. FIR was registered by Uttar Pradesh Police in connection with his report on the condition of Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya at Begriya Mau in Lucknow’s Gosaiganj area.

In his report, Yadav had said that toilets at the school were in shabby condition and not even drinking water facility was available. However, Yadav was booked under sections of the Bharaya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 for allegedly entering the school premises without permission, disturbing the study of children studying there and compelling two women teachers to talk to media about the condition of the school.

Police also claimed in the FIR that the school’s condition was excellent and Yadav made such a news story “owing to political prejudice”.

Yadav’s counsel while challenging the FIR against him argued that offences under the BNS invoked against him were not made out in the alleged case. Further, it was submitted that proceedings under Section 356 (criminal defamation) can be initiated only by an aggrieved person.

The counsel for Yadav further said that Section 353 (statements conducing to public mischief) of the BNS provides exception for statements being published in good faith. With respect to Section 223 of the BNS, it was submitted that there is no order of any public servant which had been disobeyed by Yadav by entering the school premises.

Agreeing with the arguments made by Yadav’s counsel, the Court said FIR could not have been registered for offence of criminal defamation under Section 356 BNS as it could be initiated only by way of complaint by aggrieved person.

“Thus, it is apparent that the authorities have patently erred in law in lodging the impugned First Information Report so far as Section 356 of the BNS, 20 23 is concerned,” the Bench said.

The Court added that exception provided under Section 353 of BNS was sought to be ignored by the school authorities since news report revealed poor condition of school.

It also noted that no order was issued by any public servant to prohibit people from entering school premises.

On the contents of news report filed by Yadav, the Court remarked that 16 years have passed since when Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act was enacted.

The Court said the act mandates Government to provide safe and adequate drinking water facility, separate toilets for boys and girls, and a playground for children. “If as per the report published by petitioner, the aforementioned facilities were not available at the school yet the school authorities and for that matter the Government turned a blind eye to such condition, shamelessly so. Once as per the Act, 2009, a duty is cast on the Government to do so & in case the petitioner has highlighted the shortcomings in the school and its infrastructure, it was for the Government to have looked into it and to have initiated action for removal of the shortcomings instead of making it an ego issue and lodging the impugned First Information Report,” the Bench said.

It ordered that no action shall be taken against Yadav till further orders. “Considering the aforesaid, a prima facie case for interference is made out. As such, until further orders, the operation of the impugned First Information Report shall remain stayed and no action shall be taken against the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned First Information Report.” The Court added.

Meanwhile, the Court also directed the Additional Chief Secretary of Basic Education to file his personal affidavit stating the present condition of the school. He shall apprise the Court about changes if any made at the school after Yadav’s report were published.

The matter has been posted for hearing after four weeks.

Advocate Wali Nawaz Khan appeared for the petitioner.