Several representative bodies of journalists have spoken out after a second FIR was filed against Gujarat scribe Mahesh Langa, this time for alleged possession of "confidential documents".

Langa is in police custody in Ahmedabad in an alleged tax fraud case.

In a statement on Monday, the Editors Guild of India expressed “concern over the registration of a second FIR against Mahesh Langa, a senior assistant editor for The Hindu in Gujarat, for allegedly possessing some 'confidential documents' pertaining to the Gujarat Maritime Board".

"Journalists are often required to access and review sensitive documents in the course of their work, and initiating punitive action against them for doing their work is worrisome," it said.

The guild added: “It is important that the Gujarat police disclose details about the second set of accusations levelled against him over possessing the confidential documents. That the second FIR is not accessible to the public online, which since the police have reportedly put it under the 'sensitive category', is of grave concern."

The Press Club of India, Delhi Union of Journalists, Indian Women's Press Corps, Press Association and the Kerala Union of Working Journalists demanded that the case be withdrawn.

In a joint statement, they said: “To implicate and incriminate media persons for the mere possession of documents is tantamount to a fundamental assault on the profession itself. We appeal and demand that the FIR be withdrawn and the harassment caused to Mahesh Langa be ceased forthwith. We also call upon the Press Council of India to step in and perform its mandate of safeguarding the freedom of the press.”

In a series of posts on X on Saturday, The Hindu’s editor Suresh Nambath termed the non-disclosure of the second FIR "unacceptable".

He said: “We would like to reiterate that journalists are required to process documents, including those of a confidential nature, in the line of their work. They are guided by the larger public interest in perusing documents that are official or confidential.

“To file charges against them for possession of such documents is to undermine their journalistic work and their fundamental rights and to subvert the public interest...."