Play all audios:
A vacation bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma said it could not pass protection orders without knowing the nature of the offence/charges against the petitioner
journalists.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to grant interim relief to two Madhya Pradesh-based journalists, Shashikant Jatav and Amarkant Singh Chouhan, who alleged custodial assault,
caste-based abuse, and threat to life from the Bhind police, including Superintendent of Police Asit Yadav, after they reported on illegal sand mining in the Chambal River region.
A vacation bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma said it could not pass protection orders without knowing the nature of the offence/charges against the petitioner
journalists.
“Suppose you commit a crime like murder, can we grant you no coercive protection order? We have to know what kind of crime the police are alleging,” remarked Justice Sharma.
The journalists have sought protection, citing threats from the local police. They have claimed that they were kidnapped, assaulted, and subjected to casteist abuse inside the chamber of the
Superintendent of Police, Asit Yadav, on May 1, after being summoned under the pretext of a meeting. The plea alleged that upon arrival, they found several other journalists stripped to
their undergarments and being beaten.
One of the petitioners, Shashikant Jatav, a member of the Scheduled Caste ‘Jatav’ community, was allegedly beaten with slippers and abused with casteist slurs at the instructions of SP Asit
Yadav, says the plea.
However, the bench expressed dissatisfaction with the plea’s content, observing that the SP was not made a party to the case, and details of the criminal allegations against the journalists
were not stated.
“It is very easy to make allegations against an IPS officer and keep making allegations in black and white,” Justice Sharma observed.
“You have said you have a threat to your life day in and day out… The story that you created last day, it has not come across in the petition,” Justice Karol added.
When the petitioner’s advocate Warisha Farasat pleaded for protection till Monday, June 9, the bench responded firmly:
“Suppose you are guilty of murder, what do we do? We need to see what’s against you. Sorry, we cannot protect you now.”
The court questioned why the journalists had not approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court or Delhi High Court, noting that vacation benches were functional.
“We appreciate that you are the fourth pillar. But you have to show the apprehension borne out of the record. What prevents you from going to the Madhya Pradesh High Court? What prevents you
from going to the Delhi High Court, which is sitting during vacations?” the Bench persisted.
The petitioners argued they feared reprisal if they approached courts in Madhya Pradesh.
Despite refusing interim relief, the Supreme Court issued notice to the State of Madhya Pradesh and listed the matter for further hearing on Monday, June 9.