In a significant development underscoring the volatile intersection between journalism and state power, the Supreme Court of India has granted two-week interim protection from arrest to two Madhya Pradesh-based journalists who allege threats and police harassment for exposing illegal sand mining in the Chambal river region.
The journalists—Shashikant Jatav and Amarkant Singh Chouhan, both associated with Swaraj Express—had filed a petition in the apex court, stating that they faced intimidation and physical violence from the police in Bhind district after reporting on rampant sand mining operations allegedly run with political and administrative complicity.
Allegations of Assault and Intimidation
According to the petitioners, the saga of abuse began after their investigative reports on sand mafia activities in the Chambal river area aired publicly. Chouhan alleged that on May 1, he was lured by the Bhind Superintendent of Police (SP) under the pretext of having tea. Once at the SP’s residence, he claims he was brutally assaulted and humiliated—stripped and beaten in front of several journalists.
In a subsequent event on May 4, both journalists were allegedly abducted from a railway station by an unknown individual and taken to a local dhaba. There, they say, they were picked up by police and brought to the SP’s bungalow, where they were pressured to withdraw their complaints and stop pursuing the matter.
Fearing for their lives, the journalists fled to Delhi and sought refuge. Complaints were lodged with the Press Council of India and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on May 5.
Legal Battle and Supreme Court Intervention
Initially, the journalists approached the Delhi High Court, which granted them a two-month interim protection to enable them to seek relief from the Madhya Pradesh High Court. However, recognizing that the matter involved jurisdictional complexities spanning two states, they moved the Supreme Court for protection under Article 32 of the Constitution.
On Monday, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices PK Mishra and Manmohan granted them protection from arrest for two weeks. The Court directed them to approach the Madhya Pradesh High Court for further legal relief.
“Considering the nature of allegations, we relegate the petitioners to approach the high court of Madhya Pradesh within two weeks...Till then, the petitioners shall not be arrested,” the bench stated.
State Government's Response: Allegations of Extortion
The Madhya Pradesh government strongly opposed the plea, claiming that the journalists were not victims but accused in an extortion case. It argued that the petition was an attempt to escape legal scrutiny and mislead the court under the guise of press freedom.
The state submitted that no concrete evidence had been presented to support the allegations of police abuse. It insisted that the petitioners should not be granted immunity from legal action while facing serious criminal charges.
However, the Supreme Court appeared unconvinced by this line of argument. “Why will anyone come to Delhi to file a petition if there is nothing at all?” the bench remarked, showing cautious empathy towards the journalists’ claims.
Press Freedom in Peril?
This case brings into sharp focus the continuing challenges faced by journalists reporting on illegal activities involving politically connected actors—especially in smaller towns and rural areas. From physical threats to the misuse of legal instruments like false FIRs and extortion charges, the tools of harassment are varied and often state-sponsored.
Advocate Warisha Farasat, representing the petitioners, emphasized the real and imminent threat to life the journalists faced if they were forced to return to Bhind without legal protection.
Press freedom watchdogs and human rights organizations have expressed concern about the growing impunity with which journalists are targeted in India, especially those investigating environmental crimes, corruption, and land grabs.
What Lies Ahead
With the Supreme Court granting temporary protection, all eyes now turn to the Madhya Pradesh High Court, where the journalists are expected to file for anticipatory bail or seek further legal safeguards.
This case is more than just a legal skirmish—it is a litmus test for the functioning of Indian democracy, freedom of expression, and the judiciary's ability to balance state authority with individual rights.
If the journalists’ allegations are substantiated, it may prompt a deeper investigation into the nexus between sand mafias and law enforcement in central India—a network that has remained largely unchallenged due to fear and political patronage.
Conclusion
As India continues to rank poorly in global press freedom indices, cases like this serve as both warnings and opportunities. Warnings of what happens when power is unchecked, and opportunities for the judiciary and civil society to push back against institutional overreach.
The next steps in the Madhya Pradesh High Court will determine whether whistleblowers and journalists can feel secure in their mission—or whether the sands of Chambal will continue to silence those who dare to speak.