Live
- Man threatens to jump into lake if he doesn’t get divorced from his wife
- Vikram’s ‘Veera Dheera Sooran’ teaser: Laden with mass elements
- Tamil Nadu records 40.05 pc voting till 1 pm
- Sithara Entertainments announces ‘MAD Square;’ pooja ceremony held
- Google Unifies Hardware and Software Teams for Advanced AI Development
- Amit Shah Recalls Political Journey As He Files Nomination From Gandhinagar
- Political Furor Erupts Over Tragic Campus Murder In Karnataka
- Liver diseases in kids up due to junk food, sugar consumption
- Air India Suspends Tel Aviv Flights Amidst Middle East Tensions
- ‘Beauty of Indian democracy’: Women officers dominate polling in Puducherry’s Mahe region
Against muzzling of press but can't create separate avenues: Supreme Court
Supreme Court (File/Photo)
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it does not want freedom of the press to be muzzled, but it also cannot create a separate avenue for journalists to approach it directly in connection with quashing of FIRs against them.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it does not want freedom of the press to be muzzled, but it also cannot create a separate avenue for journalists to approach it directly in connection with quashing of FIRs against them.
The apex court made this observation while hearing a plea filed by Foundation for Independent Journalism, which runs news portal The Wire, and three of its journalists seeking quashing of three FIRs lodged against them in Uttar Pradesh over some news reports.
A bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna granted two months protection to news portal and three of its journalists -- Seraj Ali, Mukul Singh Chauhan and Ismat Ara -- in three FIRs.
The bench told the petitioners' counsel that they have to go to the high court and argue for quashing the FIRs.
"We will protect you in the interim," it noted.
"We are aware of fundamental rights and don't want freedom of press to be muzzled," it said, but also added that if the petitioners' plea is allowed, then it would "open a Pandora's box".
"We cannot create a separate avenue for journalists to directly come to this court under Article 32 for quashing of FIRs," noted the bench.
As Nitya Ramakrishnan, counsel appearing for petitioners, sought the court's permission to withdraw the petition to pursue other remedies available under the law, the bench ordered: "No coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners for a period of two months from today. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn."
