Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay has petitioned the Supreme Court to quash an FIR filed by UP Police over his report on caste dynamics in the state’s administration. The FIR, which includes severe charges, also refers to Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath as an “incarnation of God,” raising concerns about legal and safety threats to the journalist.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay has approached the Supreme Court of India, seeking the dismissal of an FIR filed against him by the Uttar Pradesh Police. The FIR was lodged in response to his investigative report, Yadav Raj versus Thakur Raj (or Singh Raj), which critically analyzed caste dynamics within the Uttar Pradesh State Administration. The report garnered widespread attention from various political figures and intensified debates surrounding caste-related issues in governance.
The FIR, which cites serious charges, was registered under multiple sections of the law, including Sections 353(2) [hate speech], 197(1)(C) [statements against national integration], 302 [hurting religious sentiments], and 356 [defamation] of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita Act (BNS Act), along with Section 66 of the IT (Amendment) Act, 2008. The complaint leading to these charges was reportedly filed by one Pankaj Kumar, who took offense to the journalist’s critical examination of caste hierarchies in the state’s administrative framework.
Adding to the complexity of the case, Upadhyay has reported that he has been receiving legal threats and even personal threats to his safety. His plea filed through Advocate on Record Anoop Prakash Awasthi argues that the FIR has been wrongfully registered and that the report, in no way, violates any legal provisions.
One of the more contentious elements of the FIR revolves around its reference to Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.
The FIR highlights an excerpt praising the Chief Minister, stating:
“Honorable Yogi Adityanath Maharaj Ji is viewed as an incarnation of God. Among all the Chief Ministers across Indian states, none rival Maharaj Ji’s popularity. He also has the highest number of followers on the social media platform X compared to any other Chief Minister in India.”
This description, glorifying the CM as a divine figure, has only escalated the tensions surrounding Upadhyay’s report. His legal team contends that such endorsements from political authorities underscore the problematic nature of the FIR and call into question the freedom of the press in India.
The controversy took a sharp turn when former Chief Minister and current Leader of the Opposition, Akhilesh Yadav, expressed his endorsement of Upadhyay’s report on the social media platform ‘X’ (formerly known as Twitter). This endorsement led to heightened scrutiny of the journalist’s work, sparking a wave of backlash from political figures, law enforcement, and certain social factions.
Soon after Akhilesh Yadav’s statement, the official Uttar Pradesh Police handle on ‘X’ responded to Upadhyay’s posts with warnings, accusing him of spreading rumors and misinformation. The UP Police hinted at potential legal consequences, further heightening the pressure on the journalist. In his plea, Upadhyay expressed concerns over these public warnings, stating that he has been receiving threats of legal action and physical harm, including potential “encounter” threats.
“The petitioner is receiving ongoing threats on social media, including the possibility of arrest, physical harm, or even an encounter killing at the hands of the UP Police,”
-reads an excerpt from his plea to the Supreme Court.
Upadhyay’s legal battle has raised broader concerns about the state of journalistic freedom in India, particularly when it comes to reporting on sensitive issues like caste dynamics. In his petition, he argued that his report, which objectively examines caste-related biases in the administrative processes of Uttar Pradesh, does not reveal any offense punishable under Indian law.
According to the plea, the journalist believes that the FIR has been strategically misconstrued by state authorities to suppress critical voices and intimidate those who question existing power structures. Upadhyay asserts that his report, when viewed in its entirety, is a valid exercise of press freedom and an essential critique of governance practices.
