The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the FIR registered against journalist Abhishek Upadhyay in connection with an alleged road-rage incident in Ghaziabad. The order came on Upadhyay’s plea, challenging the FIR and seeking a fair and independent investigation.
The Court directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with the FIR already registered at Ghaziabad or in any FIR that may be registered against him in the meantime. The Court further directed that a copy of the Ghaziabad FIR be supplied to Upadhyay, after which he would be at liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court. The Court also directed that the CCTV footage relating to the alleged incident be preserved.
Upadhyay has alleged that the FIR is connected to his investigative journalism, particularly his reporting on the Ayodhya Ram Mandir donation issue. During the hearing, his counsel submitted that Upadhyay had carried out several investigations and faced FIRs in connection with his reports.
“
“He has reported entire incident of Ayodhya, my Lord. He did all the exposé, my Lord. Earlier also he has done so much investigations, my Lord, for each and every investigation there is some FIR on some critical reason, my Lord. In this particular case, my Lord, I do not want any other relief, my Lord, other than the fair investigation.”
The counsel sought transfer of the investigation from the Uttar Pradesh Police to an independent agency, submitting that a fair investigation could be conducted by the Delhi Police or the CBI.
The FIR concerns allegations that Upadhyay, while travelling in a Bolero vehicle, hit a scooter and thereafter abused the rider. Upadhyay has denied that any such incident took place and has challenged the allegations as false.
During the hearing, the Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana also discussed the factual allegations surrounding the alleged collision and noted that the investigation would have to ascertain what had actually happened.
Upadhyay’s counsel further complained that the petitioner had not been supplied a copy of the FIR or the relevant CCTV footage. He submitted that these materials were necessary for the petitioner to properly challenge the allegations.
“
“They did not provide the copy of the FIR, my Lord. They should give us copy of the FIR and CCTV footage also, my Lord. So that we can challenge it properly, my Lord. Only CCTV footage and copy of the FIR, my Lord. If they provide these two things, then we can challenge it properly.”
The Supreme Court, while entertaining the petition, has now stayed the FIR.