Guwahati: The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Uttar Pradesh Police to refrain from taking coercive action against independent journalist Abhishek Upadhyay in a road-rage case, granting him interim protection amid his allegations of harassment over his reporting on the alleged misappropriation of donations to the Ram Temple in Ayodhya.
A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant also directed the Ghaziabad Police Commissioner to provide Upadhyay copies of the FIR and CCTV footage related to the case and file a compliance report before the court on September 7.
Senior advocate Pradeep Rai, appearing for Upadhyay, told the court that his client had committed the “unpardonable sin of exposing the Ram Mandir donation issue”.
“I do not want any other relief other than a fair investigation,” Rai said.
Rai, who is also the newly elected president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, said the police had not provided Upadhyay with a copy of the FIR or the CCTV footage, which he said would be necessary for the journalist to defend himself.
The court said the interim protection would also extend to any other FIRs registered against Upadhyay during the intervening period, giving him “breathing space and time”.
“We can protect you for the time being. Meanwhile, he can approach the jurisdictional High Court. We appreciate that you have an imminent apprehension of repetitive FIRs against you,” Chief Justice Kant said.
The court noted that the allegation against Upadhyay was that his SUV had hit a two-wheeler and that he had subsequently hurled caste-based abuses at the scooterist.
“If this was done, it will amount to an offence. If it is a concocted story, you need breathing space and time to make out a case,” the Chief Justice said.
During an oral mentioning on August 24, Upadhyay’s counsel had said the journalist was also being accused by the police of other serious offences, including under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Upadhyay has alleged that the FIR was based on concocted allegations and was intended to harass him over his independent journalistic work.
In his plea, he also alleged that the police had not supplied him with a copy of the FIR and were pressuring nearby shopkeepers to delete CCTV footage from the relevant period.