The Punjab and Haryana High Court on January 12, 2026, stepped in to protect journalists and an RTI activist facing criminal action over a news report on helicopter movements in Punjab. The court stayed further investigation in an FIR registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), observing that criminal law should not be used to silence criticism or reporting on matters of public interest.
Background of the Case
The case arose from FIR No. 67 dated December 12, 2025, registered at the Cyber Crime Police Station, Ludhiana. The FIR named four petitioners Manik Goyal, a law student and RTI activist; Baljinder Singh alias Mintu Gurusaria, a journalist and satirist; Maninderjeet Singh, editor of Lok Awas Television; and journalist Mandeep Singh Makkar.
Read also:- Delhi HC Orders Audit of Court Staff Vacancies, Declines FIR After Saket Court Ahlmad’s Suicide
According to the petitioners, the controversy began after Manik Goyal sought information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act about expenditure incurred by the Punjab government on chartered aircraft and helicopters since March 2022. The request was denied under Section 24 of the RTI Act, citing security concerns of dignitaries.
The petitioners argued that similar information about helicopter movement was already available on public flight-tracking platforms. Based on such publicly accessible data, a news story was published highlighting multiple helicopter flights in December 2025, a period when the Punjab Chief Minister was reportedly abroad.
Why the FIR Was Registered
The state alleged that the published content was distorted, misleading, and based on an incorrect interpretation of flight-tracking data. The FIR claimed the posts created a false narrative suggesting unauthorized or suspicious use of a helicopter linked to the Chief Minister.
According to the police version reproduced in court, the content was “deliberately fabricated” and capable of misleading the public, disturbing public order, and undermining confidence in constitutional authorities. On this basis, offences under Sections 353(1), 353(2), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, were invoked
Petitioners’ Stand
Senior counsel for the petitioners argued that none of the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were made out. He told the court that the report was based on information already in the public domain and did not involve any incitement or obstruction of public duty.
Relying on landmark Supreme Court judgments, including Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar and Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, the petitioners contended that fair reporting and criticism of the government are protected forms of free speech.
Read also:- 'Stop Treating Courts as Battlefields': Supreme Court on Rising Matrimonial Litigation
“Fair reporting cannot be tested by the registration of FIRs,” the counsel submitted.
The petitioners also alleged that the FIR reflected misuse of criminal law to intimidate journalists and suppress legitimate scrutiny of government functioning.
State’s Response
Opposing the plea, the Punjab government argued that the uploaded material had the potential to disturb public tranquillity. The state said the investigation was at an early stage and should not be halted prematurely.
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, the state urged the court to allow the investigation to continue, stressing that courts should rarely interfere at the investigation stage.
Read also:- Compassionate Appointment Meant to Ease Hardship, Not Blocked by Age: Allahabad HC
Court’s Observations
Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj made pointed observations on the balance between free speech and state action. The court noted that criticism, satire, or reporting on public affairs is often unwelcome to those in power, but personal offence cannot become the benchmark for criminal prosecution.
“The yardstick always has to be that of ordinary prudence and a direct nexus,” the court observed, adding that a remote possibility of reaction or manufactured outrage cannot justify criminal liability against authors or journalists. The judge also underlined that legal principles remain uniform, regardless of who the complainant or the accused is.
Decision
After hearing both sides, the High Court held that allowing the criminal process to continue at this stage could prejudice the rights of the petitioners. Until the next date of hearing, the court ordered that further investigation in the FIR shall remain stayed.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on February 23, 2026.
Case Title: Manik Goyal & Others v. State of Punjab & Another
Case Number: CRM-M-391-2026
Date of Order: January 12, 2026
