People holding placards and candles take part in a prayer service for peace in Manipur.
Credit: PTI Photo
The Supreme Court on Wednesday protected members of Editors Guild of India from any coercive actions in two FIRs filed against them for a report that they had published on the ethnic clashes in Manipur.
A bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra sought a response from the Manipur government a plea filed on behalf of the Guild.
The top court took up the matter for hearing upon an urgent mentioning made by senior advocate Shyam Divan on behalf of the Guild.
On September 4, Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh had said that a police case has been filed on the basis of a complaint against the president and three members of the Editors Guild of India and accused them of trying to 'provoke clashes' in the state.
A second FIR was also registered against the four members of the Guild, with an additional charge of defamation.
The plea also sought quashing of the FIRs.
Divan said there is an apprehension of arrest. He sought direction for an urgent hearing.
"There are four writ petitioners before the court and we are seeking protection from arrest and coercive steps,” he said.
Divan said the guild appointed a fact-finding committee and the first three petitioners, who are senior journalists, were part of the committee and they went to Manipur and for four days they were on the ground.
He said they interviewed the people and then prepared a fact finding report and that fact-finding report was issued on September 2. Thereafter, two FIRs were lodged against them.
On September 4, Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh had said that a police case has been filed on the basis of a complaint against the president and three members of the Editors Guild of India and accused them of trying to 'provoke clashes' in the state.
A second FIR was also registered against the four members of the Guild, with an additional charge of defamation. The Guild, in its report, had slammed the internet ban in the state as being detrimental to media reportage, criticised what it termed as one-sided reporting by some media outlets and claimed there were indications that the state leadership 'had turned partisan' during the conflict period.