Live
- Kishan Reddy Vows to End BRS and Congress Influence in Telangana, Criticizes CM's Governance
- Punjab bypolls: Bittu twisting words for political gains, says Congress nominee
- Punjab CM to administer oath to over 10,000 sarpanches on Friday
- BJP Core Committee Plans Protests Against State Government’s Failures
- Mulugu Collector Divakar's Facebook Hacked Again, Cyber Criminals Send Fraudulent Messages Asking for Money
- The Role of Genetics in Obesity: Can Metabolic Bariatric Surgery Help?
- Deputy CM Bhatti Vikramarka's Visit to Khammam District: Lays Foundation for Road Works Worth Rs. 8.9 Crore
- ED Files Charge Sheet in Agrigold Case, Attaches Assets Worth Over ₹4,100 Crores
- Mushfiqur Rahim ruled out of Afghanistan ODIs with finger fracture
- Turn Up the Festive Flair: Dazzling Holiday Colours from Berger Paints
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."
