Yesterday, the Supreme Court restrained the Uttar Pradesh police from taking coercive action against journalist Mamta Tripathi, who is facing four FIRs related to her articles that are critical of the Yogi Adityanath governm.

Tripathi has claimed that she has been receiving continuous threats on social media, including threats of sexual assault.

In one of her articles titled “Yadav Raj vs Thakur Raj (or Singh Raj),” Tripathi argued that caste dynamics significantly influenced bureaucratic postings in the state, highlighting the dominant position of the Thakur community, to which Adityanath belongs. While issuing a notice to the state government, a bench led by Justice B.R. Gavai stated, “…In the meantime, it is directed that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner concerning the subject articles.”

The next hearing is scheduled to take place in four weeks.

The police have filed four FIRs against Tripathi in Ayodhya, Amethi, Barabanki, and Lucknow based on complaints from various individuals. When asked why Tripathi approached the Supreme Court directly, her counsel, senior advocate Siddharth Dave, referenced a recent case in which the court granted bail to another Uttar Pradesh journalist, Abhishek Upadhyay. Upadhyay had reported on the dominance of the Thakur and Singh communities in the state, drawing comparisons to the previous Akhilesh Yadav government, during which Yadavs held sway over the administration.

Earlier, a bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S.V.N. Bhatti had stayed any coercive action against Upadhyay, emphasizing that criminal cases should not be initiated against journalists merely for their critical writings. They invoked the fundamental right to free speech in their ruling.

Dave informed Thursday’s bench—which included Justices P.K. Mishra and K.V. Viswanathan—that Upadhyay faced only a single FIR, whereas Tripathi is contending with four. The FIRs against Tripathi invoke several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including 353(2) (statements conducive to public mischief), 197 (imputations prejudicial to national integration), 302 (uttering words with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings), and 356(2) (defamation).

Tripathi’s petition, filed through advocate Amarjit Singh Bedi, characterizes her as “a veteran investigative journalist” and “an outspoken critic of corruption and the abuse of processes within government machinery.” The petition argues that the FIRs were registered “to create a chilling effect and deter her from questioning the functioning of the incumbent government.”

“The petitioner is continuously getting threats on social media which include arrest, bodily injury, outraging her modesty,” it says.