The Punjab & Haryana High Court has ruled that for an offence to be established, the essential ingredients for a prima facie commission of the offence must be demonstrated by the State. The Court relied on the principle that fair reporting and legitimate criticism of the government are protected under the Constitution as a foundational pillar of democracy, citing landmark Supreme Court judgments like Kedar Nath Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Romesh Thapar V. State of Madras.
While acknowledging the general principle from M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra that courts should not interfere with an investigation at a nascent stage, the High Court held that this case could be an exception where non-interference might lead to a miscarriage of justice. The Court determined that allowing the criminal process to continue without first demonstrating the prima facie existence of the offence’s ingredients would prejudice the petitioners’ rights.
The ruling is centred on the balance between the freedom of speech and expression, particularly journalistic freedom, and the State’s power to initiate criminal proceedings, with a strong assertion that merely because a person holding a public office feels offended, is no yardstick on which State action is to be measured.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj observed that criticism and satire are often not well-received by individuals in public office, and reactions can manifest as cyber-bullying or attempts to silence critics. The Bench noted that State action should not be measured by whether a public office holder feels offended.
Emphasising that the yardstick must be that of “ordinary prudence and a direct nexus”, and a remote possibility of a reaction is not sufficient to establish criminal liability for the authors, the Bench said that legal principles must be applied uniformly, regardless of the identity of the complainant or the accused.
While acknowledging that media should adhere to ethics of truth, accuracy, and impartiality, the Bench stated that whether the petitioners’ actions constituted unfair or motivational propaganda was an aspect yet to be determined. Lastly, the Bench opined that the continuation of the criminal process, in this instance, would prejudice the rights of the aggrieved petitioners, and these rights needed protection at the current stage.
Briefly, the petitioners include a law student and RTI activist, journalists, and a television channel owner, who sought to quash an FIR registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Ludhiana City. The case originated when Petitioner No. 1, Manik Goyal, filed an RTI application seeking information on the expenditure incurred by the Government of Punjab for chartering aircraft since March 2022. This request was rejected by the authorities under Section 24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, on security grounds.
The petitioners contended that information regarding helicopter movements was already publicly available on the website “FlightRadar24”. After noticing that the state’s helicopter undertook multiple flights in December 2025, a period when the Chief Minister of Punjab was abroad, the petitioners published a news story on their media platform detailing these flights. Subsequently, an FIR was registered against the petitioners under Sections 353(1), 353(2), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The FIR alleged that the news story contained “distorted, unverified, and patently incorrect assertions” based on an “erroneous interpretation of flight-tracking data” and was a “false, misleading, and deliberately fabricated narrative” intended to mislead the public and malign constitutional authorities. The State argued that this conduct could erode public confidence, disrupt governmental functioning, and affect public order in the sensitive border state of Punjab.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate R.S. Bains, along with Advocates Loveneet Thakur and Sarabjot Singh Cheema, for the Petitioner
Addl. A.G. Punjab, Chanchal Kumar Singla, along with Advocates Ravinder Kaur and Rahul Aryan, for the Respondent
