P&H High Court stays action against activist, journalists over posts on Punjab CM's helicopter

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed that the State cannot initiate action against an individual solely because he raised questions against a person holding a public office [Manik Goyal & Others v. State of Punjab & Anr]

Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj made the observation while staying criminal investigation against an RTI activist and three journalists who were booked for raising questions about the use of Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Singh Mann’s helicopter.

The Court noted the criticism and satire is hardly cherished by those in public offence, who often resort to cyber-bullying and even silencing the critic.

"Right of reporting as a part of journalistic freedom of speech and expression has arisen much often for consideration before Courts. Much often, criticism and satire is hardly cherished by people holding public office and at some times, the reactions come forth by way of cyber-bullying, sullying or even silencing the critique and criticism," the bench said.

The Court also observed that the criminal liability cannot be extended to the authors of a work.

"Merely because a person holding a public office feels offended may not be the yardstick on which State action is to be measured. It would also not be influenced by the projections sought to be portrayed by State. The yardstick always has to be that of ordinary prudence and a direct nexus. A remote possibility of some reaction or motivated artificial inflammation of sentiments or such display shall hold such person liable for such action and the criminal liability would not trickle to the authors," it said.

It added that test of conduct of a reasonable person with objective, ordinary prudence also lies on the person who sets the criminal law in motion.

"Legal principles do not change on the basis of who the complainant or the accused may be. The uniformity of law and its universal application is what a Court is required to do," the bench underscored.

However, the Court also emphasised that social media influencers and print or visual media should adhere to the ethics of journalism reflecting commitment to truth, accuracy and independent, impartial reporting.

They should not resort to unfair or motivational reporting and spread of propaganda, it added

The Court made these observations while dealing with a quashing plea filed by activist Manik Goyal - who is also studying law - and journalists Baljinder Singh, Mainderjit Singh and Mandeep Singh Makker against the FIR registered against them in Ludhiana.

The case against them stemmed from CM Mann’s 10-day visit to Japan in December 2025. 

Based on publicly-available flight tracking information, Goyal in a social media post raised questions about the use of the Chief Minister’s helicopter during his absence in India.

“Who used the CM’s official chopper in his absence?” he asked after finding that the helicopter had been flown multiple times. 

In his post, Goyal also mentioned that no adequate response had been given to him in response to his previous RTI applications relating to the expenditure incurred on Chief Minister’s helicopter use. Goyal’s social media posts were reported by the media, including the three journalists.

Following wide media coverage, the police filed an FIR against Goyal and the three journalists. It alleged that a distorted, unverified and patently incorrect information was shared about the helicopter’s use. 

However, the FIR also acknowledged that the helicopter was used during the relevant period by an individual holding constitutional office. Nevertheless, the police said sharing of such “misleading” information could affect public order and administrative harmony in the sensitive border state of Punjab.

In their quashing plea before the Court, the accused alleged that the government machinery and police administration was being used to silence the citizens who dare to question or oppose the unjust actions of the authorities. 

“The petitioners acted bonafidely, without malice and solely in furtherance of transparency, accountability and public interest. There was no intention to defame any individual, to threaten any authority or to disturb public order in any manner,” the plea said.

The accused argued that political criticism, inquiry, and the questioning of administrative actions are the heart of protected free speech in a democracy 

In the order passed on January 12, the Court said the issues pertaining to existence of ingredients for prima facie commission of offence are required to be demonstrated.

"Continuation of criminal process, in the meantime, would prejudice rights of the aggrieved. The same thus needs to be protected at his stage," it added, while staying further investigation till January 23.

Senior Advocate RS Bains with advocates Loveneet Thakur and Sarabjot Singh Cheema represented the petitioners.

Additional Advocate General Chanchal Kumar Singla with advocates Ravinder Kaur and Rahul Aryan represented the State.

[Read Order]