The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed all further proceedings in the criminal cases registered against two Delhi journalists last month for their reporting on the communal violence in Tripura, after hearing their argument that the FIRs were vindictive and an assault on their freedom of speech and expression.
The bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath also issued a notice to the Tripura government, seeking its response in four weeks on the plea by journalists Samriddhi K. Sakunia and Swarna Jha and the media house they work for — HW News Network — seeking the quashing of the two FIRs lodged against them.
The proceedings against the media house were also stayed.
Sakunia and Jha had been detained on November 14 in Assam’s Karimganj district after they were booked in Tripura on a complaint from a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) leader that they were spreading communal disharmony. Both Assam and Tripura are governed by the BJP. The VHP has been accused of fomenting communal violence in parts of Tripura on October 26 while it was leading a protest against the Durga Puja attacks on Hindus in Bangladesh. The strife in Tripura is now being looked into by the high court there.
The Supreme Court said in a written order on Wednesday: “Issue notice. Liberty to serve the Standing Counsel for the State of Tripura…. Counter-affidavit shall be filed within a period of four weeks from the date of service…. Pending further orders, there shall be a stay of further proceedings pursuant to (i) FIR No. 39 of 2021 registered on 14 November 2021 at Fatikroy Police Station, Unakoti, Tripura; and (ii) FIR No 82 of 2021 registered on 14 November 2021 at Police Station Kakraban Udaypur Gomati, Tripura.”
The apex court tagged the matter along with another similar petition filed by two advocates and a journalist challenging the registration of FIRs against them for their social media posts on the Tripura violence.
The court passed the directions after hearing senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for Sakunia, Jha and Theo Connect Pvt Ltd that owns HW News Network, assail the FIRs as vindictive and “an assault on their freedom of speech and expression”.
“If the quest for truth and reporting thereof itself is criminalised, then the victim in the process is the idea of justice”, the petition said, adding that the allegation of hate speech was “bizarre” as the journalists’ endeavour was fact-finding and ground reporting of the alleged riots.
The FIR at Fatikroy police station in Unakoti district of Tripura had been registered on November 14 on the basis of a complaint by local VHP leader Kanchan Das. Das had alleged that the two reporters had delivered an “instigating speech” against Hindus and the Tripura government while meeting Muslims at Paul Bazaar.
The FIR was registered under IPC Sections 120 (criminal conspiracy), 153A (promoting enmity between different religious groups) and 504 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace). The FIR at Kakraban police station in Gomati district was registered suo motu, and charged the accused with creating hatred between religious groups.
HW News Network, in its petition filed through advocate Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, had said the petitioners were merely discharging their journalistic duties and had been analysing news reports on Tripura High Court taking suo motu cognisance of the violence in the state.
According to the petition on November 1, Sakunia and Jha had reported on a mosque that was allegedly torched in Tripura’s Gomti district and on the targeting of another mosque and properties owned by the minorities in Panisagar subdivision.
The petition said that following VHP leader Das’s complaint, Tripura police had around 10.30pm on November 13 surrounded the lobby of the hotel where Sakunia and Jha had been putting up and prevented them from going out.
The petition alleged that the police also issued a notice to associate editor Arti Ghargi. “The reply and time sought by Arti Ghargi was rejected by investigating officer in a threatening and intimidating manner and in brazen defiance to the provisions of the Code (CrPC),” the petition said.
It underlined that CrPC Section 160 mandated that a woman or a person below 15 years need not visit a police station for investigation if they are not residents of the area under its jurisdiction.
“Therefore, in terms of the above Section 160 (I) proviso, Ms Arti Ghargi was not required to appear before Tripura police and she could have attended the local police station where she resides. This statutory mandate is not subject to whims and fancies of the investigating agency,” the petition said.
“The very intent of legislature to carve out this exception by a 2013 amendment is to pre-empt coercion and abuse upon a woman by (the) investigating agency during the course of (the) investigation. In spite of all of the above, when the said petitioner had attended the police station, she met with great intimidating tactics at the hands of the state agency and much more similar treatment that was extended to the Petitioner No.2 and 3 (Sakunia and Jha). The acts of the respondents are nothing but an attempt to silence the petitioner with undue influence and coercion,” it added.