Chandigarh, November 3 - The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday directed journalist Ajeet Bharti to approach the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), SAS Nagar, for details of any First Information Report (FIR) registered against him. The direction came after Bharti approached the court, claiming he had learned through a news article that a case might have been lodged against him in Punjab over a social media post linked to an incident involving the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
The petition was heard by Justice Subhas Mehla, who conducted the proceedings through a hybrid setup.
Background
Ajeet Bharti, a journalist known for his outspoken commentary on public affairs, had filed a criminal writ petition (CRWP-11409-2025) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. He sought protection of his personal liberty, alleging that multiple FIRs were being filed across states based on a "twisted interpretation" of his remarks about a courtroom incident on October 6, 2025, involving the Chief Justice of India.
During the previous hearing, Bharti’s counsel Advocates Ashish Dixit and Shivam Tiwari clarified that they were not pressing for anticipatory bail at this stage. Instead, they sought a limited direction requiring the Punjab Police to inform Bharti about any FIR registered against him.
"The petitioner only wishes to know whether an FIR has been registered and, if so, the particulars of it," his counsel told the bench.
Court Proceedings
On October 27, 2025, the State of Punjab had sought time to verify whether any case was indeed registered against Bharti. When the matter came up again on November 3, the State, represented by Additional Advocate General Jastej Singh, said that investigations were ongoing into a series of offensive videos circulating on social media.
Singh informed the court that several links contained "abusive and derogatory language against Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India," and that multiple FIRs might have been registered in connection with the same digital content. However, he admitted that it was "not feasible at this stage to identify which specific person has been arraigned as an accused" since the investigation was still at a preliminary stage.
"The videos are being examined, and it cannot be confirmed yet whether the petitioner is named in any FIR," Singh told the court.
Justice Mehla then observed that the petitioner was entitled to clarity about his legal position but must approach the appropriate authority to obtain it.
Court's Observations
The bench noted that the State had taken cognizance of the alleged social media content, but since the matter involved digital evidence and multiple online links, verification would require some time.
"The investigation is ongoing," the judge remarked, adding that it would not be appropriate for the High Court to pre-emptively interfere. The bench emphasized that Bharti’s liberty must remain protected by law, but the petitioner should first follow due process to ascertain whether his name figures in any registered case.
The bench observed,
"At this point, it cannot be ascertained whether the petitioner is an accused or not. However, he has every right to obtain information through lawful means," a court official familiar with the hearing said.
The judge also refrained from making any comment on the substance of the alleged videos or their interpretation, noting that the matter was still under active investigation by the Punjab Police.
Court's Decision
In the end, Justice Subhas Mehla disposed of the petition with a clear procedural direction:
"If the petitioner/accused wants to know the details of FIR, then he is at liberty to furnish details of the video uploaded by him on social media to the Senior Superintendent of Police, SAS Nagar, and get the details regarding the FIR against him."
The court’s order effectively means that no blanket relief or anticipatory protection was granted at this stage. Instead, Bharti was given a pathway to obtain official information about any case filed against him by directly engaging with the district police.
The ruling underscores the judiciary’s balancing act between free expression and accountability, especially in the context of online speech. It also highlights the increasing number of disputes arising from social media posts and digital commentary, which are now routinely drawing legal scrutiny in multiple states.
As of the court’s direction, the ball now lies in Bharti's court - he must contact the police with relevant details of his social media uploads if he wishes to verify whether any FIR names him as an accused.
The matter was marked as "disposed of," with no further hearings scheduled unless fresh cause arises.
Case Title: Ajeet Bharti v. State of Punjab and Others
Case Number: CRWP-11409-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 03 November 2025
Advocates Appearing
For the Petitioner:
- Mr. Ashish Dixit, Advocate (through video conferencing)
- Mr. Shivam Tiwari, Advocate
For the State of Punjab:
- Mr. Jastej Singh, Additional Advocate General (AAG), Punjab
