Allahabad High Court denies bail to journalist accused of spreading hate against PM Modi, CM Adityanath

The Allahabad High Court recently denied bail to a journalist accused of extortion and propagating “hate speech” against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath [Amit Maurya @ Amit Kumar Singh vs State of UP]..Justice Manju Rani Chauhan also made detailed comments on misuse of platforms by publishers for personal gain, the value of constructive criticism and the need to uphold secular principles..The accused, Amit Maurya is alleged to have demanded monthly payments from the informant - the Vice President of the Purvanchal Truck Owners Association - and threatened to publish damaging articles against him. He is also stated to have used social media to spread hate speech against public figures, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, while also making derogatory remarks against religious figures..The Court said it was entirely unacceptable for publishers to exploit their platforms for personal gain as it not only undermines the integrity of journalism but also erodes public trust in the media.“Exploiting one's position in the media landscape to extract benefits or coerce individuals through threats tarnishes the integrity of journalism. Such actions not only betray the trust bestowed upon the media by the public but also undermine the very essence of democratic principles,” said the Court. .The Court also took exception to the use of personal remarks and abusive language against individuals, particularly public figures like the Prime Minister or Chief Minister. It described the same as reprehensible and antithetical to the principles of civil discourse. The Court added that dissent and criticism was important in a democratic society, but cautioned that they must be expressed in a manner that upholds dignity and respect for all.“Resorting to derogatory language and personal attacks serves no constructive purpose and only serves to inflame tensions and undermine the fabric of civil society,” said the Court. .It added that when dissent devolves into ad hominem attacks and character assassination, it detracts from substantive issues at hand.“Moreover, resorting to abusive language and personal remarks not only undermines the dignity of the individuals targeted but also sets a harmful precedent for future discourse. It fosters a culture of divisiveness and hostility, where civil dialogue becomes increasingly elusive, and the exchange of ideas gives way to vitriol and animosity,” the Court observed..The Court emphasised that there is a clear distinction between legitimate dissent with the government and the propagation of abusive language and hatred. The use of hatred and incendiary language poses a grave threat to social cohesion and undermines the foundational values of tolerance and respect for diversity, it said while calling for an environment of mutual understanding..The Court also said that upholding secular principles is not merely a constitutional obligation but a moral imperative which was essential for the preservation of India's democratic values.It said that secularism stands as a “cornerstone of our democratic ethos” and emphasised the separation of religion from the affairs of the State. “This principle not only ensures religious freedom and pluralism but also fosters a society where individuals from diverse religious backgrounds can coexist harmoniously,” the Court said..The Court also said that it was essential to acknowledge and uphold the principles on which the nation is founded. It remarked that religious sentiments hold immense significance for millions of citizens and that any act which seeks to denigrate or insult those sentiments was not only morally reprehensible but also a violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India.“Such actions not only undermine the sanctity of religious beliefs but also violate the fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution, which guarantee the freedom of religion and expression for all individuals,” Justice Chauhan said..The Court further stressed that in a pluralistic society like India, which is characterised by its rich tapestry of religious diversity, fostering an environment of mutual respect and understanding was paramount.“Publishers and journalists play a crucial role in this endeavour, and it is incumbent upon them to exercise their power responsibly, refrain from denigrating religious sentiments, and uphold the principles of tolerance, respect, and equality for all. By doing so, they contribute to the strength and resilience of our secular democracy, ensuring that it remains a beacon of hope and freedom for generations to come,” it added..On the allegations against the accused, the Court said he had misused a publication as a tool for coercion while hiding behind the facade of being a journalist.“It is clear that the individual in question has failed to uphold the ethical standards expected of journalists. Instead of serving the public interest, they have chosen to prioritize their own personal gain at the expense of journalistic integrity and democratic values,” the Court said while rejecting the bail plea..Advocates Mahima Maurya Kushwaha, Mukesh Kumar Kushwaha represented the accused.Advocate Desh Ratan Chaudhary represented the informant.Advocate Amit Singh Chauhan represented the State..[Read Order]