Former DM, police among 26 booked for illegal demolition of journalist’s house in Uttar Pradesh
Maharajganj: Nearly two months after the Supreme Court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to hold officials accountable for the illegal demolition of journalist Manoj Tibrewal Akash’s ancestral house, the police have registered a criminal case against 26 individuals. Those named in the FIR include the then District Magistrate (DM) Amar Nath Upadhyay, several police officers, administrative officials, engineers, and contractors.
The FIR, filed on December 30, 2024, charges the accused with 16 offences, including criminal conspiracy, disobedience of law, forging documents, and wrongful confinement. The demolition, carried out on September 13, 2019, was reportedly linked to a road widening project. Tibrewal alleges the action was part of a "vindictive conspiracy" following his father’s complaint about corruption in the construction of a nearby highway stretch.
In November 2024, a three-judge Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud condemned the act, describing it as “bulldozer justice,” and ordered the state to pay Tibrewal Rs 25 lakh in compensation. The apex court also instructed the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh to ensure punitive measures against those responsible.
Tibrewal’s complaint claims that officials demolished the family’s two-storey house and shop without notice, acquisition process, or compensation. He described the incident as a “criminal act,” alleging officials forcibly vacated his family, misbehaved with his mother and pregnant sister-in-law, and left no time to retrieve valuables.
The property, purchased by Tibrewal’s grandfather in the 1960s, was reportedly marked for partial demolition during a meeting with district officials. However, the next day, the entire structure was demolished, allegedly without warning, under heavy police deployment.
The FIR names several officials, including ADM Maharajganj Kunj Bihari Agarwal, executive officer Rajesh Jaiswal, superintendent engineers Manikant Agarwal and Ashok Kanojia, and nine police officers, among others. The charges include rioting, criminal intimidation, causing injury, forgery, and endangering personal safety.
Amar Nath Upadhyay, who served as Maharajganj’s DM during the incident, has faced prior accusations of financial irregularities, including overreporting the number of cattle at a conservation centre. Following the demolition, he was suspended but later reinstated to other administrative roles.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Karnataka HC quashes FIR against three men accused of 'preaching Islam' near temple premises
Bengaluru, Jul 25 (PTI): The Karnataka High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) filed against three Muslim men who were accused of "preaching Islam" and distributing religious pamphlets near a Hindu temple in Jamkhandi, Bagalkot district.
The complaint had alleged that the men attempted religious conversion by making promises of employment and passed derogatory remarks about Hinduism.
However, the High Court held that there was no substantial evidence of coercion, fraud, or inducement--criteria necessary for prosecution under the Karnataka Protection of Right to Freedom of Religion Act, 2022.
The court made it clear that mere expression or distribution of religious literature does not amount to an offence unless accompanied by forceful or deceitful attempts to convert.
"The essence of a free society lies in the freedom to express, discuss, and propagate beliefs," the bench observed.
It further stated that peaceful preaching, in the absence of coercion or allurement, is protected under Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freely profess and propagate one's religion.
Additionally, the bench noted that the complainant in the case was neither the alleged victim nor a relative of one. As per Section 4 of the 2022 Act, only an aggrieved individual or their close relatives are permitted to lodge such complaints--making the FIR procedurally invalid.
