The Supreme Court on Thursday provided interim protection to journalist Mamta Tripathi, facing charges due to her social media post discussing caste dynamics in the Uttar Pradesh administration. The three-judge bench, consisting of Justice BR Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, and Justice KV Viswanathan, issued a directive that “no coercive action” should be taken against Tripathi while also asking for a response from the Uttar Pradesh government concerning her petition to quash four FIRs lodged against her.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, representing Tripathi, highlighted a parallel case where journalist Abhishek Upadhyay had been granted similar protection under the grounds of free speech. Dave pointed out, “This is the same case where Justice Roy’s bench granted protection to another journalist. He had only one FIR registered, while I face four FIRs for the same case.”
On October 4, the Supreme Court had granted protection to Upadhyay, underscoring the importance of freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court affirmed that journalists should not face criminal charges merely for writings that critique the government. “In democratic nations, freedom to express one’s views is respected,” the court had stated, emphasizing the constitutional protections afforded to journalists.
The controversy began with a post by Upadhyay on X (formerly Twitter), discussing what he termed “Yadav Raj versus Thakur Raj (or Singh Raj),” which critiqued the caste composition within the current UP administration. Tripathi’s similar commentary, which she shared on the same platform, led to multiple FIRs being filed against her under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), including those addressing hate speech, statements against national integration, offending religious sentiments, and defamation, along with a charge under the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.
These FIRs were initiated after a complaint by Pankaj Kumar, leading Tripathi to seek the quashing of these cases. The Supreme Court’s decision to extend protection to Tripathi follows its recognition of the essential role of journalism in a democratic society and the need to safeguard journalists against undue legal pressures when engaging in legitimate critique of governmental policies.
