By Adv. R. S. Agrawal 

 

 

IN THE judgment of the case - Amit Maurya alias Amit Kumar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh , delivered on March 13, 2024, Justice (Mrs) Manju Rani Chauhan, at the Allahabad High Court, has declared quite emphatically that 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 personal values. Therefore, considering the gravity of these allegations, there is no justification for granting bail to an individual, who has so blatantly abused their position of trust and influence. The Court has stated that Firstly, it is imperative to address the principles that if someone is engaged in corrupt practices, the appropriate course of action is to bring forth information to the public domain, allowing for transparency and accountability to prevail. It is the duty of the journalists and publishers to disseminate factual information to the public, empowering them to make informed decisions. However, it is entirely unacceptable for publishers to exploit their platform for their personal gain, resorting to coercive tactics under the guise of publication. The act of leveraging publication as a tool for coercion, not only undermines the integrity of journalism but also erodes public trust in the media, which plays a pivotal role in upholding democratic values.

 

It is crucial to score the fundamental principle that in the event of someone being involved in corrupt activities, the proper course of action entails bringing this information to light in the public domain. This serves to uphold transparency and accountability within society, essential pillars of a functioning democracy. It is the solemn duty of journalists and publishers to disseminate factual and accurate information to the public, thereby empowering individuals to make informed decisions regarding their governance and societal matters. However, it is utterly reprehensible for publishers to misuse their platform for personal gain, resorting to coercive tactics disguised as legitimate publication endeavors. 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. When publishers resort to leveraging their platform as tools for extortion, they not only betray the trust of their audience but also jeopardize the foundational values of journalism, which include impartiality, integrity and commitment to the truth. By engaging in such unethical practices, they erode public confidence in the media, which serves as a crucial watchdog in safeguarding democratic norms and institutions. In essence, the misuse of publication for personal gain not only corrodes the credibility of journalism but also undermines the democratic fabric of the society.

 

The media’s role as a guardian of truth and accountability is essential in ensuring the health and vitality of democracy. Therefore, it is imperative that publishers adhere to ethical standards and refrain from exploiting their platform for illicit purposes, thereby upholding the integrity of journalism and preserving public trust in the media as a cornerstone of democratic governance. Secondly, the use of personal remarks and abusive language against any individual, particularly public figures such as the Prime Minister or Chief Minister, is reprehensible and antithetical to the principles of civil discourse. In a democratic society, dissent and criticism are essential components of robust governance, but they must be expressed in a manner that upholds dignity and respect for all individuals. Resorting to derogatory language and personal attacks serves no constructive purpose and only serves to inflame tensions and undermine the fabric of the civil society. Though the dissent serves as a catalyst for critical reflection and course correction, prompting policymakers to reconsider decisions in light of public feedback. However, when dissent devolves into an ad hominem attacks and character assassination, it detracts from the substantive issues at hand and impedes the pursuit of common goals for the betterment of society.

 

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. Thirdly, it is crucial to draw a clear distinction between legitimate dissent with the government and constructive criticism, and the propagation of abusive language and hatred. In a democracy citizens have the right to express dissent and engage in constructive criticism of government policies and actions. However, this must be done within the bounds of civility and respect for democratic institutions. Resorting to inflammatory language and spreading hatred only serves to sow discord and undermine the Foundations of democracy. However, this right to dissent comes with a responsibility to exercise it in a manner consistent with the norms of civil discourse. On the other hand, the propagation of abusive language and hatred represents a stark departure from the principles of democratic discourse. When dissent descends into vitriol and personal attacks, it ceases to contribute constructively to public discourse and instead fosters division and animosity.

 

Therefore, it is incumbent upon all members of society including journalists, activists and public officials to uphold the principles of civil discourse and reject the proliferation of abusive language and hatred. By promoting a culture of civility and respect, all concerned can safeguard the integrity of democratic institutions and advance the collective well-being of society. Fourthly, it is essential to acknowledge and uphold the secular principles upon which our nation is founded. Religious sentiments hold immense significance for millions of citizens. Publishers and journalists, as purveyors of information and opinion, wield significant influence in shaping public discourse and perceptions. Making baseless statements or passing derogatory remarks on religious figures or practices not only constitutes the misuse of their power but also poses a direct threat to the fabric of our secular democracy. Fifthly, it is apparent from the allegations in this case, that the individual in question (the applicant for bail) has misused publication as a tool for coercion, all while hiding behind the façade of being a journalist, instead of fulfilling his noble duty of providing accurate information. In conclusion, the HC has stated that considering the gravity of allegations against the applicant, including the misuse of publication for extortion, propagation of abusive language against public figures and disregard for religious sentiments, it did not find any merit in this application for bail and rejects it and the persons responsible for abusing their position and influence for personal gain be held accountable for their actions.