The Supreme Court will hear a plea by journalist Abhishek Upadhyay tomorrow to quash a first information report filed against him in a road rage case. Upadhyay says the charges are retaliation for his reporting on alleged corruption involving the Ram Mandir Trust and the Uttar Pradesh administration.
His work exposed alleged embezzlement of donations meant for the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya. Upadhyay argued the FIR, lodged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, was an attempt to silence him. The case came before a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, which agreed to list the matter for August 25.
The journalist’s counsel told the court multiple FIRs had been filed against him, including one under the stringent SC/ST Act. “The police party raided his house on the 20th. Yesterday also, the police came at 5 o’clock,” the counsel said, requesting an urgent listing. The CJI agreed, subject to curing defects in the petition.
Upadhyay had also published an investigation into an IAS officer reportedly close to Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. The report showed the officer, listed as a “business” professional, bought agricultural land in Bhadohi for nearly ₹20 crore in 2023.
The FIR against Upadhyay was registered on August 18 after a two-wheeler rider accused him of hitting his vehicle and threatening him. Charges were filed under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the SC/ST Act.
Related: Top law firms advise Dhoot Transmission IPO
Upadhyay denied the allegations in his plea. He stated he was returning home with his minor daughter when a motorcyclist stopped his car and caused a disturbance. He avoided confrontation to protect his child. “There was no collision, physical confrontation, or further incident,” the document said.
The journalist claimed the incident was staged, with the complainant planted by state authorities as retaliation. After learning of the FIR, he asked colleagues to check for CCTV footage near the scene. Police had already pressured shop owners to delete or withhold it.
The plea also noted discrepancies in the FIR. The motorcycle’s registration belonged to a Delhi resident, not the complainant. The bike was identified as a TVS Apache RTR 160 4V, not a Splendor as stated in the report.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case quickly may reflect its recognition of the urgency. The SC/ST Act carries strict provisions and limited bail options. A ruling in Upadhyay’s favor could influence how such cases are handled when they involve press freedom.
His legal team remains focused on disproving the charges while highlighting the broader implications for media rights.
