The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday, 12th January, granted interim relief to a law student-RTI activist and three journalists, staying further investigation in an FIR filed against them.
The case is related to a social media post and a news report that raised questions about the use of Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Singh Mann’s official helicopter at a time when he was not in the country.
The Court ordered that no further probe should continue until the next date of hearing. This relief applies to all the accused, including journalists and media professionals who were booked for publishing the story on helicopter movements.
Court speaks on free reporting
The matter was heard by Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj, who also issued notice on the petition filed by the accused seeking to cancel the FIR. While passing the order, the judge made important remarks on the freedom of the press.
The Court observed that reporting news is an important part of freedom of speech and expression and has often been examined by courts. It pointed out that people holding public office do not always welcome criticism or satire. In some cases, instead of responding with facts, reactions take the form of attempts to shame, pressure, or silence those asking questions.
The bench made it clear that just because a public official feels offended, that alone cannot justify criminal action. The judge said the State cannot act based on emotions or its own version of events. According to the Court, the correct test is what an ordinary person would think and whether there is a clear and direct link between the act and any real harm.
Even if there is a chance of some reaction or a planned attempt to stir sentiments, the responsibility for such reactions lies with those creating them, not with the writers or reporters.
While standing firmly by free reporting, the Court also reminded the media of its responsibilities. It said that social media users and print or TV media are expected to follow journalistic ethics.
At the same time, the Court clarified that whether these standards were violated in the present case is still an open question and will be decided later.
RTI query behind the dispute
As per the petition, the issue began when an application was filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The applicant asked for details of the money spent by the Punjab government on chartering jets, aeroplanes, and helicopters since March 2022. The request also asks for dates of travel, destinations, and names of those who travelled.
The government rejected the RTI request by citing Section 24 of the Act, citing security concerns of dignitaries. The petitioners argued that this information does not fall under the exempted category. They also said that similar details about helicopter movements are already available in the public domain through the flight-tracking website FlightRadar24, which anyone can access.
FIR after news report
The petition states that several helicopter flights were noticed in December 2025. Based on this publicly available data, a news report was published from 1st December onwards, explaining these movements. After the report came out, the FIR was registered.
According to the FIR, the petitioners shared distorted and incorrect claims by misleading flight data. The State says this created a misleading story about helicopter use linked to the Chief Minister.
It further claims that the content could mislead the public, weaken trust in constitutional authorities, disturb public order, and affect administration in Punjab. On this basis, Sections 353(1), 353(2), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 were applied.
Arguments and interim relief
Senior counsel R.S. Bains, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the basic elements of the offences under Section 353 BNS are missing and that the story was based on information already available publicly.
On the other side, Senior Advocate Chanchal Singla, appearing for the State, said the content was inflammatory and had the potential to disturb public peace. He also asked for permission to place more material on record and argued that the investigation was at an early stage and should not be stopped.
After hearing both sides, the Court said that the existence of a clear offence must first be shown. Till then, it ordered that further investigation remain stayed.
