The Punjab and Haryana High Court stepped in on Monday, granting interim relief to a law student and RTI activist along with three journalists. The court stayed further investigation in an FIR registered against them. This case revolves around social media posts that questioned the use of Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Singh Mann's official helicopter during his absence abroad.
Court Issues Notice to Punjab Government
Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj issued a notice of motion to the State of Punjab. The notice is returnable on February 23. The petitioners approached the High Court seeking the quashing of FIR No. 67 of 2025. They invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Details of the FIR and Petitioners
The FIR was registered on December 12, 2025, at the Cyber Crime Police Station in Ludhiana. It was filed under Sections 353(1), 353(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioners include Manik Goyal, a law student and RTI activist. Journalists Baljinder Singh alias Mintu Gurusaria, Maninderjeet Singh and Mandeep Singh Makkar are also petitioners.
Origin of the Controversy
The case stems from a social media post made by Goyal on December 9, 2025. He flagged the movement of the Chief Minister's helicopter, bearing registration number VT-PSG, on December 8. At that time, Chief Minister Mann was on an official visit to Japan from December 1 to 10.
The petitioners argue that the FIR originates from a bona fide public query. Goyal raised questions about the helicopter's use on a date when the Chief Minister was admittedly out of India on an official foreign delegation.
Information Sourced from Public Platform
The petition states that the information shared in the post came from FlightRadar24. This is a publicly accessible and lawful flight-tracking platform. By entering the helicopter's registration number, Goyal observed that on December 8 the aircraft undertook multiple sorties within Chandigarh. It then flew to Amritsar, travelled onward to another location and returned to Chandigarh.
The post merely shared publicly available data. It raised issues of transparency in the use of public resources. The issue subsequently triggered wider discussion. The three journalist-petitioners raised similar questions on their respective platforms and interviewed Goyal.
Allegations Against the State
The petition alleges that instead of clarifying the matter, the State chose to initiate criminal proceedings. It further points out that there is no private complainant in the case. The FIR was registered solely on the complaint of a police officer, Inspector Satbir Singh. It does not disclose any grievance raised by a member of the public.
The plea also claims that while the FIR acknowledges that the helicopter flew on the relevant date and was used by a person holding a constitutional post, it conceals the identity of that person and the purpose of the flight.
Constitutional Protections Cited
The petitioners argue that even if the allegations in the FIR are accepted at face value, no cognisable offence is made out. They contend that raising questions, sharing publicly available information and participating in public debate are protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. They assert that the FIR is intended to stifle dissent and independent journalism.
Background of RTI Applications
The plea refers to Goyal's earlier attempts to seek information through RTI applications filed in 2024. These applications sought details regarding government expenditure on helicopters and aircraft since March 2022. They were rejected on the ground of security exemptions under Section 24 of the RTI Act.
Legal Representation and Hearing
Senior advocate R.S. Bains argued the case for the petitioners. He was assisted by advocate Loveneet Thakur. The interim order stays all further proceedings in the FIR until the next date of hearing.
Context of Broader Controversy
This controversy escalates ahead of the High Court hearing on the alleged audio clip involving Patiala SSP Varun Sharma. The case highlights ongoing tensions between transparency advocates and state authorities in Punjab.
The court's intervention provides temporary relief to the activists and journalists. It underscores the judiciary's role in balancing state actions with fundamental rights to free speech and information.
