Supreme Court Steps In: Journalist Challenges FIR Over Social Media Post on Minister's Convoy Incident

In a significant development that underscores the ongoing debate surrounding press freedom and social media, the Supreme Court of India is poised to hear a crucial plea from Assam-based journalist Atanu Bhuyan. Set for August 28, the apex court will deliberate on Bhuyan's challenge against an FIR filed by the Assam Police, an action he claims is a direct assault on his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.

The controversy ignited after Bhuyan shared a video on social media platform X (formerly Twitter) depicting a road accident in Golaghat, Assam.

The clip purportedly showed a security vehicle belonging to an Assam Minister's convoy involved in the incident. Following this post, the Kaliabor Police registered an FIR against the journalist under stringent sections of the Indian Penal Code: 153A, which pertains to promoting enmity between different groups, and 505(2), concerning statements conducing to public mischief.

These charges have raised eyebrows, with many questioning their applicability to merely sharing public information.

Bhuyan, a vocal figure in Assam's media landscape, has vehemently argued that the FIR is nothing short of an abuse of the legal process. He contends that the state machinery is being weaponised to silence and harass him for simply performing his journalistic duty—disseminating information that was already circulating in the public domain.

His petition to the Supreme Court highlights that the video he shared was not his original content but rather a widely circulated clip, making the charges against him appear disproportionate and an attempt to stifle critical reporting.

This isn't Bhuyan's first legal recourse. Earlier, he had approached the Gauhati High Court, seeking to quash the FIR.

However, the High Court declined his plea, instead directing him to seek anticipatory bail. This ruling paved the way for Bhuyan to elevate his fight to the nation's highest judicial body, seeking protection against what he perceives as unwarranted legal pressure.

The case is now scheduled to be heard by a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta.

Their decision will undoubtedly carry significant implications for journalists, social media users, and the broader interpretation of free speech in India, particularly when it intersects with official scrutiny and public interest. The original road accident, which sparked this legal battle, reportedly involved a pilot vehicle of Minister Pijush Hazarika's convoy colliding with a Maruti Swift Dzire, adding a layer of sensitivity to the entire episode.

As August 28 approaches, all eyes will be on the Supreme Court as it navigates this complex intersection of law, media, and public accountability.