Tantamounts To Killing The Messenger: Allahabad High Court Stays FIR Against Journalist Allegedly For Exposing School Lapses
|The Court said that the FIR was a retaliatory action against the shortcomings being exposed by the petitioner/journalist.
The Allahabad High Court has stayed an FIR registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, against journalist Amit Yadav, who was allegedly targeted by authorities after reporting on the abysmal conditions and lack of basic amenities at Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya in Lucknow.
It was observed that lodging an FIR against a reporter for exposing infrastructural lapses under the Right to Education Act, 2009, amounts to "killing the messenger."
The Court noted that the case appeared to be a retaliatory act by authorities.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava observed, "When the controversy in the instant case is seen viz-a-viz the act done by the petitioner of reporting about the shortcomings of the school it is prima facie apparent that the First Information Report is retaliatory action to the shortcomings being exposed by the petitioner, a journalist and thus tantamounts to "killing the messenger" which clearly is not countenanced in the eyes of law. Once the shortcomings of the school have been brought out and the same do not conform to the provisions of the 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."
Advocate Wali Nawaz Khan appeared for the Petitioner
Brief Facts
A writ petition was filed seeking quashing of the FIR registered for the offences under Sections 223, 353, and 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), 2023.
The Petitioner, who was working as a journalist, had gone to a school, namely, Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Begriya Mau, Gosaiganj, Lucknow, to report on the condition of the school, where he found the toilets to be in a shabby condition; drinking water was also not available, and the overall condition of the school was not good. He had also taken interviews of certain teachers.
Subsequently, the FIR was registered indicating that despite the school being in an excellent condition and even the toilets being very clean and the institution not having any difficulty whatsoever, the petitioner had entered the school premises without any permission and had interrupted the studies of the children and also compelled two lady teachers to talk about the condition of the school. It was also indicated that on account of political prejudice, the said reporting has been done.
Contentions of the Parties
The Petitioner contended that the provisions of the BNS 2023 which were invoked against the petitioner would not be applicable. It was further argued that the exception to Section 353 of the BNS, 2023 would be applicable to his case, where the legislature has categorically provided that no offence under Section 353 of the BNS would be made out where the person making or publishing, or circulating any such statement, false information, rumour or report has reasonable grounds for believing that such statement, false information, rumour or report is true and publishes or circulates the same in good faith, without any such intent as aforesaid.
The State submitted that the school was clean in all aspects, the toilets are clean, and the school is not having any difficulty and is being cleaned regularly. It was also stated that a notice under Section 35(3) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 has also been issued to the petitioner.
Observations/Findings of the Court
The Court noted that Section 222 of the BNS, 2023, categorically provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 356 of the BNS, 2023 except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. Thus, the impugned First Information Report could not have been straightaway lodged under Section 356 of the BNS, 2023.
The Court observed, "Prima facie, a perusal of the coloured photographs which have been annexed along with the petition indicates the abysmal condition of the toilets of the concerned school and the abysmal condition of the premises of the school. Thus, the authorities should have first considered the exception as provided under Section 353 of the BNS, 2023 prior to lodging of the impugned First Information Report, even if the First Information Report could have been lodged straightaway."
The Court also observed that once the norms and standards for a school are read in accordance with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, it emerges that there is a mandate on the Government to provide an all-weather building for a school comprising safe and adequate drinking water facilities to all children, separate toilets for boys and girls, playground, etc.
The Court added, "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."
While relying on various judgments passed by the Supreme Court, the Court reiterated that the exercise of journalistic freedom lies at the core of speech and expression protected by Article 19 (1) (a) 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.
Consequently, the Court held that a prima facie case for its interference was made out. Accordingly, the Court stayed the operation of the impugned First Information Report.
The Court also directed the Additional Chief Secretary, Basic Education, Government of U.P., to file his personal affidavit indicating the present condition of the said school.
Cause Title: Amit Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors. [Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8913 of 2026]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocates Wali Nawaz Khan, Harsh Vardhan Kediya