Yogi glorification in FIR and press freedom
text_fields
“Honorable Yogi Adityanath Maharaj Ji is like an incarnation of God. The Indian territory among all the Chief Ministers of various States in India, none even come close to Maharaj Ji in terms of popularity. Maharaj Ji has the highest number of followers on the social media platform X compared to any other Chief Minister in India. Since Maharaj Ji became Chief Minister, Uttar Pradesh has reached the top position in India concerning law and order. Uttar Pradesh has excelled in many fields at the national level under his leadership. Since he renounced worldly life, he no longer belongs to any caste; he is simply a sanyasi (monk)...” These words are not part of a welcome speech at any event attended by Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. Nor is it an introduction in any biography. These are the sentences of the FIR filed by the UP Police against journalist Abhishek Upadhyay's criticism posted on the social media platform 'X' which were quoted by his lawyer Anoop Prakash Awasthi during the hearing in the Supreme Court on his petition against the case.
Upadhyay filed a petition against the FIR in the Supreme Court and based on that, the court on Friday, October 4, stayed the arrest process against the journalist until next hearing. . And that is how this part of the FIR comes to public attention. A case was registered by the police against two journalists — Abhishek Upadhyay and Mamta Tripathi — for their posts on microblogging site X, which highlighted a casteist slant in the posting of officers in favour of a particular caste in key posts in Uttar Pradesh. The incidents started with a complaint lodged at the police station in Lucknow by Pankaj Kumar, who claims to be a freelance journalist. The police didn't have to think twice to file a case against those who criticized Yogi - the sanyasi who renounced caste. The charges against the X post include hate speech, making statements harmful to national integration, hurting religious sentiments and defamation, punishable under the bharatiya Nyay Samhita, plus the controversial Section 66 of the IT Act.
Of late, courts have been repeatedly issuing orders and warnings against BJP-ruled central and state governments on negation of media and freedom of expression. In this case also, the bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S.V.N. Bhatti stayed the police proceedings. They noted that the rights of the journalists are protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Merely because the writings of a journalist are perceived as criticism of the government, criminal cases should not be slapped against the writer. The news of the denial of civil liberties one after another by Sangh Parivar regime under the guise of a totalitarian state committed to suppressing criticism and critics is nothing new. They also strive for legislation to facilitate the process of denial. We had written two weeks ago about the Bombay High Court striking down the creation of a fact-checking unit through an amendment to to the IT Act. Governments are also taking drastic measures to prevent content that is unpalatable to them from seeing the light of day. Even when such measures are sure to lose the test of courts, then the government's efforts will be to teach journalists and critics a lesson by punishing them through the process with with harsh preventive detention.
The charges mentioned in the complaint accused the journalists of “false, baseless and misleading information” on their handles on the social media platform X, formerly Twitter, “by entering into a conspiracy and criminal mentality with intention to tarnish image of Maharaj Ji [UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath] and disturbing harmony, promoting enmity among public and causing adverse affect on national integrity”. Surprisingly, even in this era law enforcers and bureaucrats are so cut off from the processes of democratic systems. The paradox of it all is that while introducing new laws, the BJP claims like a refrain that they are making Indian laws instead replacing ones. However, many of the new laws maintain the same or even stricter restrictions on freedoms as seen in British law. Moreover, even after India gained independence and power by sweeping away the colonial masters, a new practice is introduced of the people having to bow before the new Maharajas, by the bureaucrats including the law enforcers who sing praises of the masters. The Supreme Court has once again by implication given a big lesson that elections alone are not enough to stop this evil and that the intervention of the judiciary is also key to maintaining the democratic system.