The Jharkhand High Court shields Sudhir Chaudhary, Consulting Editor at AajTak, following a complaint under the SC/ST Act. This mirrors a Supreme Court ruling, halting coercive actions against him.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
RANCHI: On 13th March, The Jharkhand High Court has granted a protective order to Sudhir Chaudhary, the Consulting Editor at AajTak. This decision mirrors a previous ruling by the Supreme Court, which also provided relief to Chaudhary by restraining any coercive actions against him until further orders.
The complaint filed in Jharkhand, Sudhir Chaudhary faces allegations under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The accusations stem from purported comments made about the tribal community following the detention of the state’s former Chief Minister, Hemant Soren, in January.
Chaudhary’s team argued before the Supreme Court, asserting that “no offence under the SC/ST Act had been made out against him.”
ALSO READ: Sudhir Chaudhary Faces Legal Challenge Over Alleged Fake News on Karnataka Subsidy Scheme
The Supreme Court took a cautious approach by issuing notices to the Jharkhand state police and other relevant entities. The directive was clear: no coercive steps were to be initiated against Chaudhary while the case was still under judicial consideration.
The narrative took a turn when Chaudhary sought refuge under the Supreme Court’s wings after the Jharkhand High Court initially declined to offer him interim protection. The apex court’s subsequent decree to shield him from arrest prompted the high court to align its stance accordingly. This pivotal order emanated from a bench presided over by Justice Rajesh Kumar, marking a significant moment in the case’s timeline.
The Jharkhand High Court amalgamated three separate petitions that all sought the annulment of FIRs against Chaudhary. The court decided to defer its examination of these pleas until the Supreme Court concluded deliberations on Chaudhary’s special leave petition.
During the court proceedings, Chaudhary’s representation, Advocate Rajesh Shukla and Ansul, clarified their legal stance. They articulated to the bench that their arguments were “confined their pleadings only to allegations made by the complainants” and conspicuously excluded any direct references to the alleged “victim,” Hemant Soren.