The Punjab and Haryana High Court put a stop to any forceful action against journalists and a law student, who were criminally prosecuted on social media posts about the supposed helicopter movements of Punjab CM Bhagwant Mann in a major verdict reaffirming the freedom of the press.
The Court noted criticism or reporting of any type that involves public authorities, does not necessarily warrant criminal prosecution, particularly where the information used to draw the criticism or report is found in publicly available form.
What Is the Case About?
It has caused controversy due to a Right to Information (RTI) application submitted by a law student and RTI activist to have information on helicopter and chartered flight use by the Punjab government since March 2022.
The RTI request contained the following information:
- Dates of helicopter travel
- Purpose of journeys
- Public exchequer cost
- Names of passengers onboard
Nonetheless, the government of Punjab refuted the information citing the consideration of security under the Section 24 of RTI Act.
Punjab CM at the Centre of the Controversy
The case revolves around social media posts and reports that referred to the alleged helicopter movements linked to Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann. The content questioned the use and frequency of helicopter travel during a period when the Chief Minister was reportedly outside the country.
Public Flights Data Posts
When the RTI request was denied, the petitioner and a group of journalists used open-source flight trackers, such as publicly available aviation data, to scan helicopter traffic.
Posts were made and a news report released based on this information that was questioning the helicopter activity at a time when the Chief Minister was reportedly out of India.
These posts quickly went viral on social media.
Punjab Police Registers FIR
After the posts went viral, Punjab Police filed an FIR against the journalists and the activist.
The FIR alleged that:
- The content of the posts was deceptive and unconfirmed.
- They generated a misleading social discourse.
- The information may have an impact on the trust of the people toward the state government.
- The reporting could have created turmoil in one of the border states.
Passages of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 were used.
High Court Steps In
The accused went to the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the FIR in order to seek protection against arrest and investigation.
When Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj heard the case, he gave the Punjab government notice and an interim order preventing further probing of the case.
This was made clear by the Court: criminal law cannot be employed as an instrument to threaten journalists or even to prevent people from speaking publicly.
Court’s Key Observations
The High Court gave a strong emphasis on the values and freedom of expression that are constitutional.
It observed that:
- The mere offence committed by an official body is not a sufficient reason to take a criminal measure.
- Under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, journalism and commentary by the people is covered.
- Prosecution should only be allowed after establishing prima facie of a cognizable offence.
The Court observed that an objective feeling of discomfort or humiliation of the officials is not enough to defeat democratic liberties.
Freedom of Press Highlighted
Although the journalism profession is associated with responsibility and ethics, the Court made it clear that the alleged inaccuracies are to be reviewed on the legal level, not prosecuted right away.
The judge commented that the media in a democracy is a watchdog and the fact that someone questions the government spending or mobility of people’s assets and resources cannot be necessarily considered criminal activity.
Relief Granted Until Next Hearing
The High Court ordered that:
- Further research will not be pursued at this point.
- There shall be no form of coercive action of the journalists or the activists.
It has been scheduled to re-hear the case on February 23, 2026.
Why This Ruling Matters
The law specialists are sure that the order has broader implications:
- It strengthens the security of the journalists when they utilize open-source information.
- It deters mishandling of criminal law to the end of discouraging reporting.
- It enhances openness on issues relating to state funds.
Media houses and civil rights groups throughout the nation are paying close attention to the case.
Conclusion
The action taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court sends a clear signal that all democratic criticism and journalistic interest cannot be criminalised just because such action puts the people in power in an awkward situation.
With further case progress, the final decision might influence further the purview of the state power, societal responsibility, and the freedom of press in India.