Today, On 24th October, The Supreme Court granted protection to another journalist, Mamta Tripathi, who was booked for tweeting about caste bias within the Uttar Pradesh administration. The Court has also requested a response from the Uttar Pradesh government regarding Tripathi’s plea to quash four First Information Reports (FIRs) filed against her.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court, On Thursday, granted interim relief to journalist Mamta Tripathi, who has been booked in multiple criminal cases for her post on X (formerly Twitter) concerning caste dynamics in appointments within the Uttar Pradesh administration.
A three-judge bench comprising Justice BR Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, and Justice KV Viswanathan ordered that “no coercive action should be taken against Tripathi” and requested the Uttar Pradesh government’s response to her plea to quash four First Information Reports (FIRs) filed against her.
The Court stated,
“Issue notice to respondent. In the meanwhile, no coercive action will be taken against the petitioner in the cases against her.”
During today’s hearing, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, representing Mamta Tripathi, informed the Court that another journalist, Abhishek Upadhyay, had been granted protection in the same matter.
Dave stated,
“This is the same case where Justice Roy’s bench granted protection to another journalist. He (referring to Upadhyay) had only one FIR registered, while I face four FIRs for the same case,”
Acknowledging this information, the Court decided to grant interim protection to Tripathi.
On October 4, the Supreme Court granted protection to Lucknow-based journalist Abhishek Upadhyay in the same case. In its order, the Court emphasized a journalist’s right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, stating that a criminal case cannot be filed against a journalist simply because their writings are seen as critical of the government.
The Court remarked,
“In democratic nations, freedom to express one’s views is respected. The rights of journalists are protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Merely because the writings of a journalist are perceived as criticism of the government, criminal cases should not be slapped against the writer.”
Abhishek Upadhyay’s post on X (formerly Twitter), titled “Yadav Raj versus Thakur Raj (or Singh Raj),” addressed caste dynamics within Uttar Pradesh’s administrative machinery. Mamta Tripathi had also shared a similar post on the platform.
A translated version of Upadhyay’s post began with the following comment,
“Since the media has extensively researched and reported on Yadav Raj during Akhilesh Yadav’s tenure, it is now essential to discuss Thakur Raj during Yogi Adityanath’s term.”
The subsequent part of the post featured a list of individuals, reportedly from the Thakur community, who are currently part of the Uttar Pradesh administration.
The post raised concerns about potential caste bias and questioned whether the State was favouring members of the Thakur community in government appointments.
An FIR subsequently filed against both Upadhyay and Tripathi under various sections, including 353(2) (hate speech), 197(1)(C) (statements against national integration), 302 (offending religious sentiments), 356 (defamation) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), and Section 66 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.
The FIR was lodged following a complaint by Pankaj Kumar. Tripathi has since filed a plea seeking to quash this case along with three other cases.