In a relief to Republic TV editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami, the Supreme Court on Friday protected him for three weeks from any coercive action in FIR lodged against him for making alleged defamatory statements against Congress Chief Sonia Gandhi he made in the news shows on the recent Palghar mob-lynching of three persons including two sadhus in Maharashtra.
Except for one FIR lodged in Nagpur city against Goswami, the top court stayed further proceedings in three FIRs and 11 complaints lodged in different States including Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh and Jharkhand.
It said in the interest of ensuring the fair administration of criminal justice there is a need to ensure that the process does not assume the character of a vexatious exercise by the institution of multifarious complaints founded on the same cause in multiple States.
A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and M R Shah, which conducted the hearing through video conferencing said, Save and except for FIR No dated April 22, 2020, registered at police station Sadar, district Nagpur City, Maharashtra, all further proceedings arising out of and emanating from the remaining FIRs and complaints listed outof the petition shall remain stayed, until further orders.
Goswami has said in his plea that the FIRs which have been already registered, and the ones which are anticipated, are in relation to the broadcasts aired on Republic TV on April 16, and R. Bharat on April 21, which were in connection with the comments given by a member of Congress in relation to India's COVID-19 testing measures and the unfortunate lynching of three individuals (including 2 sadhus/priests) in Palghar on April 16.
The top court transferred the FIR lodged in Nagpur city to the N M Joshi Marg Police Station, Mumbai, where Goswami has lodged a case in connection with attack on him and his wife allegedly by some Congress workers and said that the senior jouralist would cooperate in the investigation.
More From This Section
For a period of three weeks, the petitioner shall be protected against any coercive steps arising out of and in relation to the FIR (Nagpur case) arising out of the telecast which took place on April 21, 2020, the bench said.
It said that there is a need for the law to protect journalistic freedom within the ambit of Article 19(1) (a) (freedom of speech and expression) of the Constitution.
The petitioner would, within the above period of three weeks, be at liberty to move an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and to pursue such remedies as are available in accordance with law. Such an application shall be considered on its own merits by the competent court, the bench said in its order.
The bench also protected Goswami by staying the proceedings in any fresh FIR lodged or complaint filed with regard to the same incident.
In addition to the personal security provided to the petitioner, if a request is made by the petitioner to the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai for providing adequate security at the residence of the petitioner or at the studio of Republic TV in Mumbai, such a request shall be expeditiously considered and, based on the threat perception, police protection shall be provided, if considered appropriate and for the period during which the threat perception continues, the bench said.
The top court issued notice to Centre and different States and sought their reply within eight weeks.
It granted liberty to Goswami to amend his petition for impleading the complainants at whose behest the FIRs or the criminal complaints have been filed against him and for making of an alternate prayer for the consolidation of all the FIRs or criminal complaints for being investigated at one place.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Goswami, told the bench that the editor-in-chief and his channel had brought out the Palgarh lynching incident and on his shows, he was raising questioning over what the police was doing in the matter.
He said all the FIRs and complaints have been filed by Congress workers and they are "principally based" on the alleged defamation of the Congress chief.
Rohatgi said defamation complaint can be filed by the aggrieved person and not by others.
"It was an attack on the freedom of speech," he said, claiming that frivolous complaints have been filed against him in several states and alleged that idea behind such FIRs and complaints is to "muzzle the press" and Goswami is not able to carry out his work of journalism.
Goswami moved the apex court on Thursday through advocate Pragya Baghel seeking quashing of the Complaints/FIRs filed against him by Congress leaders in different states.
During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Maharashtra government, referred to Goswami's statements made during the shows and asked, "is this the freedom of speech?".
Sibal, who argued that no protection be granted to Goswami, referred to defamation complaints lodged aganist Rahul Gandhi and said the Congress leader had appeared in them.
Senior advocate Vivek Tankha, appearing for Chhattisgarh and the counsel for Rajasthan Government opposed Goswami's plea.
While Tankha claimed this is a case of misuse of broadcast licence and sought a restraint order on Goswami from making such statements.
Justice Chandrachud said there should be no restraint on the media. I am averse to imposing any restrictions on media.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
