Allahabad HC denies bail to journalist Amit Maurya over alleged extortion and hate speech against PM Modi and CM Adityanath. Justice Manju Rani Chauhan emphasized media platform misuse and secular journalism principles.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Uttar Pradesh: Recently, The Allahabad High Court refused to grant bail to journalist Amit Maurya, who faces accusations of extortion and disseminating hate speech against key political figures, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.
Justice Manju Rani Chauhan delivered the decision and emphasized the misuse of media platforms for personal gain, the value of constructive criticism, and the need to uphold secular principles in journalism.
Amit Maurya is accused of allegedly demanding monthly payments from the Vice President of the Purvanchal Truck Owners Association, with the threat of publishing harmful articles if his demands were not met.
Furthermore, Maurya is alleged to have used social media to disseminate hateful narratives and derogatory remarks not only aimed at Prime Minister Modi and Chief Minister Adityanath but also targeting several religious figures.
ALSO READ: Kerala HC Slams Shift in Journalism from 4 Ws to Four Ds: Defame, Denigrate, Damnify, Destroy”
The Court highlighted the reprehensible act of using media platforms for personal gain, stressing that such behavior undermines the integrity of journalism and diminishes public trust in the media.
“Utilizing one’s media position for personal benefit or pressuring individuals through threats tarnishes journalistic credibility. These actions not only breach the trust placed in the media by the public but also subvert democratic values,”
-the Court remarked, emphasizing that “Personal assaults lack constructive value.”
Moreover, the Court condemned the use of personal attacks and offensive language, particularly directed towards public figures such as the Prime Minister and Chief Minister, deeming such behavior as unacceptable and contradictory to the standards of civil discourse.
While recognizing the significance of dissent and criticism in a democratic society, the Court emphasized the necessity for these expressions to be conveyed in a manner that upholds dignity and respect for all individuals.
“Using derogatory language and launching personal attacks has no constructive value; instead, it fuels tensions and undermines the cohesion of civil society.”
-the Court elaborated.
It cautioned against personal attacks and character assassination, stating that they distract from real issues, create division and hostility, and make it difficult to have constructive conversations and share ideas.
The Court made a distinction between acceptable dissent and the spreading of hatred, labeling the latter as a major danger to social unity and the core principles of tolerance and appreciation for diversity. It called for a climate of mutual understanding.
ALSO READ: Karnataka HC Levies Rs.10 Lakh Fine on The New Indian Express for Misleading Judge Infidelity Report
The judgment also emphasized secularism as a fundamental aspect of India’s democratic principles, emphasizing the importance of keeping religion separate from state matters to safeguard religious freedom, diversity, and peaceful coexistence among different religious groups.
“This principle not only guarantees religious freedom and diversity but also promotes a society where people from various religious backgrounds can live together peacefully.”
– the Court remarked.
Justice Chauhan condemned any actions that insult or denigrate religious sentiments as morally reprehensible and violative of constitutional rights, emphasizing the importance of maintaining respect and understanding in India’s pluralistic society.
“Publishers and journalists hold a vital role in this effort, and it is their responsibility to use their influence judiciously, avoid disparaging religious beliefs, and uphold principles of tolerance, respect, and equality for everyone.”
– the Court stated.
Regarding the allegations against Maurya, the Court observed that his actions represented a misuse of publication for coercion, deviating from the ethical standards expected of journalists.
“It is evident that the individual in question has not adhered to the ethical standards expected of journalists. Rather than serving the public interest, they have prioritized personal gain over journalistic integrity and democratic principles.”
-the Court concluded, rejecting the bail plea.
Case Title:
Amit Maurya @ Amit Kumar Singh vs State of UP
READ THE ORDER
