Supreme Court of India has granted interim protection to four members of the Editors Guild of India (EGI) in response to FIRs lodged by Manipur police in connection with their fact-finding report on ethnic violence in the northeastern state. This ruling was issued by a bench presided over by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra. Furthermore, the Court has issued a notice to the State of Manipur regarding the writ petition submitted by the EGI members, with the next hearing scheduled for the upcoming Monday.

Initially not listed for the day, the petition gained urgency when Senior Advocate Shyam Divan urgently requested a hearing. Divan disclosed that two FIRs had been registered against the fact-finding team, alleging that their report had "incited enmity."

While the bench initially contemplated offering limited protection to allow the petitioners to approach the High Court, Divan pointed out that the Chief Minister had personally accused the EGI during a press conference, alleging that they had "provoked contentious statements." This revelation prompted the bench to issue a notice on the petition and provide interim protection.

Earlier in the day, Divan emphasized the urgency of the matter, expressing that senior journalists involved in the case were concerned about potential arrest. He expounded, "We are here seeking immediate directives under Article 32, and I will elucidate how. The Editors Guild of India constituted a fact-finding committee. They journeyed to Manipur, compiled a report, and concluded that local news reports displayed bias."

The EGI's 24-page findings, unveiled on September 2, were the product of the fact-finding team's mission to Manipur to scrutinize media coverage from August 7 to 10. The FIRs against them were filed in response to complaints characterizing the report as "untrue, fabricated, and influenced."

This Supreme Court ruling marks a pivotal juncture in the ongoing legal battle, temporarily safeguarding EGI members from legal repercussions and allowing them to pursue their case. It also serves to highlight broader concerns surrounding press freedom and the difficulties journalists encounter while striving for impartial reporting. The unfolding of this matter will undoubtedly command close attention in the days ahead.