The recent incident of attack on renowned Journalist Arnab Goswami Editor-in-Chief of the Republic TV has caught everyone's attention. Multiple FIRs has been filed against him in different States allegedly by the Congress party.
On Friday, when Supreme Court took his petition, bench comprising of Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice M R Shah granted three weeks protection from arrest to him, on the basis of the FIRs filed against him in States of Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Telangana and Jammu & Kashmir.
The Court clearly stated that no coercive actions to be taken against him for two weeks.
It said:
"Court intends to protect the petitioner for a period of Three weeks form today and permit him to move anticipatory bail application before the trial court or high court. For a period of two weeks, the petitioner shall be protected against any coercive steps in relation to the FIRs arising out of the telecast which took place on April 21"
Save and except for FIR registered at Nagpur, (FIR number 238 of 2020 dated April 22, 2020 registered at Nagpur, further proceedings arising out of and relating to FIRs and complaints listed out petition shall remain stayed until further orders."
The Court further held that any other FIRs filed thereafter that arose out of or related to present cause of action shall also remain stayed till any further orders.
Commissioner of Police, Mumbai has been direcvted to give protection to Republic TV Office and the Petitioner/Arnab Goswami.
Apex Court directed Goswami to cooperate with investigations.
Learned Counsel of Arnab, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi submitted before the Court that the individual complainants could not be impleaded as his client had to file the petition in one day after the "murderous attack" on him and his wife on April 23.
On the other hand Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for State of Maharashtra, submitted that the statements uttered by Goswami during the program were highly provocative, and that he communalized the Palghar lynching incident, and made vicious and tarnishing comments against Congress President Sonia Gandhi.
He went to term the petition as based on "fake freedom of speech".
He argued:
"You are trying to ignite communal violence here by putting Hindus against minority. You are creating communal violence by citing many such statements."
His assertion was that offences agaisnt Goswami were clearly made out in the FIRs, and thus they couldn't be clubbed under an omnibus petition filed under Article 32.
In his contention, Sibal frivolously asked whether Goswami is some privileged person that no investigation can be carried out against him?
Senior Advocate Dr AM Singhvi, appearing for State of Rajasthan, submitted that the offences under Sections 153A and 153B of IPC are non-bailable.
The FIRs alleged that the his news debates on the recent Palghar lynching incident in Maharashtra resulted in promotion of disharmony among the groups and that he created communal bias deliberately. It was registered that he promoted feeling against national integration.
The FIRs consists of offences under Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, 500, 504, 505 etc of the Indian Penal Code.
In the writ petition filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, the Republic TV Editor-in-Chief contended that the FIRs were in response to the broadcasts made by his channel linking Congress to the Palghar incident.
It was contended from the petitoner's side that the FIRs were lodged at the instance of Indian National Congress to "coerce, harass and intimidate the petitioner in order to muzzle the media and in particular the petitioner, and conducting investigative journalism to bring the truth before the public".
Thus, the petition registered that the criminal actions against him resulted in the infringement of his fundamental right to speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Goswami stated that following the news broadcast against Congress, there was a coordinated attack against him in social media. He added that he had to face attack from two individuals at the midnight of April 23, while he and his wife were returning from the studio.
Concerned of similar attacks in near future, he sought directions to the Centre for protection to himself and his family members.
He has further asserted that his news programs on Palghar incident didn['t promote any communal disharmony, and that the criminal actions against him were result of the offence taken by Congress party.
The petition read:
"Contrary to the tenor of allegations in the complaints filed against the Petitioner, the Petitioner has time and again encouraged and used the platform of its channel to foster communal harmony, especially in the present critical time of the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, the Petitioner has been strongly opposed to any propagation of any communalization by various other political parties for their own vested interests."
It is inconceivable that the broadcast aired on 21 April 2020 in relation to the Palghar incident could have incited any communal tension and it is apparent that only one political party is taking offence on the broadcast."
He submitted that allegations in the complaints and the FIRs are merely "conjectures and surmises" based on a "complete and vindictive misreading of only a miniscule part of the broadcast".
In wake of the incident, The Press Council of India has come forward to condemn it and a statement has been issued that states "violence was not the answer even against bad journalism".
Tags :
