Categories
Culture Dalit Bahujan Adivasi Freedom Media Minorities Politics Rule of Law

Pushp Sharma: The case of crushing dissent at all costs

Journalist Pushp Sharma, who revealed in his article published by the Milli Gazette, that the Ministry of Ayush discriminated against Muslims by not appointing them to teach yoga. Since then, Sharma has faced constant harassment from the Police, and was arrested earlier this year. His original article can be found here:

Sharma was arrested in Delhi earlier this year under IPC sections 153A (promoting hatred among communities) and 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating) as well as section 466 (forgery of record of court or of public register). The police say that he based his story on a false RTI reply. It is curious that this became a criminal matter. Moreover, an investigation by Newslaundry  implied that Sharma did have a source but refused to identify the person. Moreover, when Newslaundry filed a RTI to check the authenticity of the responces, the RTI was found to be genuine.

Sharma has been harassed from the get go, with the police pressuring him into revealing his source. This however, seems to be within the policy of the current dispensation to crush all dissent.

Since his arrest, several Human Rights groups and organisations have spoken out against the treatment handed to Sharma.

The latest to do so is the Delhi Union of Journalists who believe that a journalist must not be pressured to reveal his/her sources. The full text of the Delhi Union of Journalists' press statement can be found below:

 

DUJ STATEMENT:

The Curious Case of Pushp Sharma Journalist 

A journalist has the right to protect his source’- DUJ
 
 
The Delhi Union of Journalists condemns police moves to question journalist Pushp Sharma regarding the source of his story in the Milli Gazette which alleged that the Ministry of Ayush discriminated against Muslims by not appointing them to teach yoga.
 
 Sharma was arrested in Delhi earlier this year under IPC sections 153A (promoting hatred among communities) and 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating) as well as section 466 (forgery of record of court or of public register). The police say that he based his story on a false RTI reply, but what is curious is why the case became a criminal one. 
 
DUJ believes, first and foremost, that a journalist must not be pressured to reveal his sources. Further, criminal action in such cases, is an overreaction. The Ministry of Ayush could have simply rebutted the story and resorted to civil remedies, such as a complaint to the Press Council of India, instead of initiating a criminal case and inviting charges of high handedness and an attack on press freedom.  Meanwhile, a Newslaundry investigation seems to reveal the existence of a source which the journalist wants to keep secret.

S.K Pande, President
Sujata Madhok, General Secretary
 

Exit mobile version