The Allahabad High Court recently stayed a First Information Report (FIR) against a journalist who was booked by Uttar Pradesh Police in connection with a news report highlighting the abysmal condition of a government school in Lucknow [Amit Yadav v State of UP and 3 Others

A Division Bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava said that the FIR appeared to be a retaliatory action for exposing the shortcomings of the school.

The prosecution’s action is tantamount to "killing the messenger" which clearly is not countenanced in the eyes of the law, the Court observed.

"Once the shortcomings of the school have been brought out and the same do not conform to the provisions of the [RTE] Act, 2009 consequently, prima facie it emerges that the petitioner has done no wrong by indicating the said shortcomings and thus impugned First Information Report appears to be a malicious act on the part of the authorities against the petitioner, a journalist," the Court said.

The Court added that the Supreme Court has categorically held that journalistic freedom lies at the core of freedom of speech and expression and that India's freedom will rest safe as long as journalists can speak truth to power without being chilled by a threat of reprisal. 

The journalist, Amit Yadav, moved the Court seeking quashing of the FIR registered against him on August 24. The FIR was registered in connection with his report about the condition of Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya at Begriya Mau in Lucknow's Gosaiganj.

His report revealed that toilets in the school were in shabby condition and even the drinking water was not available. 

However, he was booked for allegedly entering the school premises without permission, interrupting the studies of children and compelling two women teachers to talk about the condition of the school.

The police case claimed that the school was in excellent condition and that Yadav's reporting was on account of political prejudice.

Challenging the FIR, Yadav's counsel argued that offences invoked against him under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) were not made out in the case. It was also argued that proceedings under Section 356 (criminal defamation) of the BNS can be initiated only by an aggrieved person.

Further, the counsel said that Section 353 (statements conducing to public mischief) of the BNS provides an exception for statements published in good faith. With regard to Section 223 of the BNS, it was submitted that there was no disobedience of any order promulgated by a public servant.

The Court agreed that the FIR could not have been registered for criminal defamation under Section 356 BNS as proceedings can be initiated only by way of a complaint by an aggrieved person.

"Thus, it is apparent that the authorities have patently erred in law in lodging the impugned First Information Report so far as Section 356 of the BNS, 2023 is concerned," it said.

The Court also said that since the news report revealed an abysmal condition of the school, the authorities should have considered the exception provided under Section 353 of the BNS before lodging the FIR.

It also noted that no order had been issued by any public servant to restrict entry to the school premises 

With regard to the contents of the news report, the Court commented that 16 years have passed since the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 was enacted.

The law mandates the government to provide facilities like safe and adequate drinking water facility, separate toilets for boys and girls and playground for children, the Court said.

It observed that once the report highlighted that these facilities were not present at the school, the government should have looked into it instead of making it an ego issue.

"Once as per the Act, 2009, a duty is cast on the Government to do so & in case the petitioner has highlighted the shortcomings in the school and its infrastructure, it was for the Government to have looked into it and to have initiated action for removal of the shortcomings instead of making it an ego issue and lodging the impugned First Information Report," the Bench said.

It, thus, ordered that no action shall be taken against Yadav till further orders.

"Considering the aforesaid, a prima facie case for interference is made out. As such, until further orders, the operation of the impugned First Information Report shall remain stayed and no action shall be taken against the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned First Information Report," the Bench ordered.

Meanwhile, the Court directed the Additional Chief Secretary of Basic Education to file his personal affidavit indicating the present condition of the school. The officer has been asked to apprise the Court about any changes made at the school after Yadav's news report.

The matter will be heard after four weeks.

Advocate Wali Nawaz Khan represented the petitioner.

[Read Order]