Not much is required to put in for the introduction of a well-renowned journalist and the Editor-in-Chief of the English News Channel – Republic TV: Mr. Arnab Ranjan Goswami. His new role as a Hindi news channel’s anchor can’t be ignored which he does at Republic Bharat owned by ARG Outlier Media Asianet News Pvt. Ltd., Managing Director of which is Arnab[1]. This article is in reference to the judgment delivered on 19th May 2020 in Arnab Ranjan Goswami versus Union of India & Ors. [W.P. (Crl.) 130/2020].
Picture Credit: Republic TV
PALGHAR INCIDENT: GENESIS OF THE FIRs
Followed by an incident which took place in Gadchinchle village, Palghar, Maharashtra (Palghar incident), wherein three persons including two sadhus were lynched by mob in presence of Maharashtra Police personnel, a broadcast took place on 16th April 2020 on Republic TV followed by another on 21st April 2020[2] on R Bharat. Multiple identical Complaints and FIRs were lodged across the country allegedly by the members of Indian National Congress (INC), in the State of Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana and Jharkhand and in the UT of Jammu & Kashmir.
To avoid any deterrent result from these lodged FIRs/Complaints, Mr. Arnab Goswami (the petitioner), moved the Highest Court of Land invoking Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner alleged in his petition that these vindictive and malicious FIRs have been lodged at the behest of INC and whereas majority of the FIRs are lodged in such State where INC are either in alliance or in power. The sections invoked in such FIRs are 153, 153A, 153B, 295A, 298, 500, 504, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The petitioner also alleged in his petition that this is a conspiracy against him by the members of the INC and to buttress his point, he also mentioned the incident which took place on 23rd April 2020, when two persons allegedly of INC threw ink on the car of the petitioner accompanied by her spouse. Quashing of the FIRs, direction of no-cognisance qua the FIRs/Complaints and direction to UOI to provide adequate security to the petitioner as well as to his colleagues were the original prayer in his writ petition[3].
While entertaining the writ petition on the first date, the Court provided interim relief to the petitioner vide order dated 24.04.2020, and wherein the Court stayed all other FIRs/Complaints across the country save and except the FIR registered at P.S. Sadar, Nagar which was transferred to NM Joshi PS, Mumbai at the request to the petitioner. The Court also directed the petitioner to move to appropriate forums including but not limited to High Court of competent jurisdiction for quashing the FIRs.
Following the interim order, innumerable IAs[4] were filed qua this writ petition by either of the parties, wherein the petitioner insulated the prayer to transfer the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleging the present investigating agency to be prejudice and biased. Also, the Government of Maharashtra asked for certain reliefs highlighting the conduct of the petitioner, wherein he made serious allegation to the Commissioner of Mumbai Police, regularly threatening tweets from the handle of Channel owned by the petitioner. Interestingly, the petitioner also did not avoid asking for declaring section 499 IPC unconstitutional as in violation of Article 19(1)(a). Needless to say, that this might be a strategy to drag the petition and enjoy the interim relief because neither any strong ground was provided nor it was argued. Further, the scrutinization of section 499 & 500 IPC on the touchstone of constitutional validity has already been concluded by the Supreme Court recently in Subramanian Swamy versus Union of India, Ministry of Law & Ors.[5], hence asking for the same was uncalled for without any robust ground.
Another Writ Petition: The Petition again filed a writ petition[6] against quashing and consequent relief for another FIR[7] registered on 02nd May 2020 at Pydhonie Police Station, Mumbai which was filed by Secretary, Raza Educational Welfare Society alleging that the petitioner in a broadcast dated 29.04.2020 made some skeptical remark about a certain community qua their role in spreading the Covid-19 virus. This remark was made in accordance with the gathering of migrant workers at Bandra Railway Station.
WHAT THE COURT HELD?
“There can be no Second FIR”
The well-known and celebrated judgment of the Supreme Court regarding multiple FIRs qua same cause of action, T.T. Antony versus State of Kerala[8] was taken into consideration by this bench of Supreme Court. In TT Antony (supra), the DB of the Supreme Court had held that second FIR cannot be entertained/filed if the information concerns the same cause of action which was alleged in the first FIR or the same occurrence or incident which gives rise to one or more cognisable offenses. If an FIR not being a counter case, filed for the same occurrence, may be termed as an “abuse of the statutory power of investigation” and the same is a fit case to entertain u/s 482 CrPC or under Article 226/227 adjudicated the Supreme Court in the present case.
The Supreme Court while quashing all the other complaints/FIRs pertaining to the same cause of action save and otherwise the Mumbai FIR, referred numerous judgments[9] of the Supreme Court wherein second FIR has been held as uncalled and wherein the State of Maharashtra also requested the Court to quash all other FIRs.
“India’s freedom will rest safe as long as journalists can speak truth to power without being chilled by a threat of reprisal”
This was the observation made by Chandrachud, J., while dealing with the Freedom of Speech & Expression vis-à-vis journalistic purview. The exercise of journalistic freedom lies at the core of speech and expression protected by Article 19(1)(a). However, the Supreme Court held that right of journalist is no higher than any other citizen and hence is answerable to the legal regime enacted with reference to the provisions of Article 19(2). The extract of this part of judgment is necessary for us to ponder the obiter well:
“… But to allow a journalist to be subjected to multiple complaints and to the pursuit of remedies traversing multiple states and jurisdictions when faced with successive FIRs and complaints bearing the same foundation has a stifling effect on the exercise of that freedom. This will effectively destroy the freedom of the citizen to know of the affairs of governance in the nation and the right of the journalist to ensure an informed society. Our decisions hold that the right of a journalist under Article 19(1)(a) is no higher than the right of the citizen to speak and express. But we must as a society never forget that one cannot exist without the other. Free citizens cannot exist when the news media is chained to adhere to one position. Yuval Noah Harari has put it succinctly in his recent book titled ‘21 Lessons for the 21st Century’: ‘Questions you cannot answer are usually far better for you than answers you cannot question’”
The Supreme Court while refusing to quash the parent FIR held that there must be a balance between the freedom stipulated in Article 19(1)(a) and the investigation of Offence under the Criminal Procedure Code and since an efficacious remedy is already available with the petitioner, the SC should not entertain such prayer under Article 32
ACCUSED CANNOT CHOOSE HIS CHOICE OF INVESTIGATION AGENCY
It would be germane to mention here that the petitioner himself in his first hearing sought the transfer of FIR from Nagpur to Mumbai, and now again while incorporating some amendments sought transfer from Maharashtra Police to CBI. The Court took cognisance of the same and opined that transfer of an investigation to the CBI is not a matter of routine and the same can be done sparingly and in special circumstances. The accused does not have a say in the matter of appointment of investigation agency. The Court did not find the grounds for transfer adequate enough. While dealing with the allegations of long interrogation and unreasonable questioning to the CFO of the company, the Supreme Court held that line of the interrogation cannot be controlled or dictated by the persons under investigation/interrogation[10]. The Investigation Agency can decide “the venue, timing, questions and the manner of putting such questions” until and unless such manner of investigation does not violate any provisions of law. The Supreme Court while discarding the transfer plea remarked that no transfer of investigation can be ordered merely because a party has leveled some allegations against the local police.
WHO THE AGGREIVED IN DEFAMATION?
It is well-established legal position that in a case of defamation only the defamed is the aggrieved and only he may file such complaint subject to the exception in Section 199 CrPC. Hence, any defamatory statement as allegedly made by the petitioner against the Chairperson of the INC, can be taken into cognisance only when Chairperson of the INC makes such complaint.
As the State of Maharashtra fairly stated that the FIR under investigation does not postulate any alleged act of criminal defamation, the Court did not find any reason to deal with the prayer qua section 499 IPC.
CONCLUSION
As it is clear, that the Court discarded majority of the averments of the petitioner and disposed off the parent writ petition without much relief, however the frequent extension of the interim relief is questioned by many. This high-profile judgment found its way too quickly in an ocean full of old fishes. However, one must praise the art of the judgment writing of HMJ Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud.
*******
[1] Source: Master Data, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2i4MMpKu9 [3] Writ Petition (Civil) No. 130 of 2020 [4] Interlocutory Applications [5] 2016(7) SCC 221 [6] Writ Petition (Crl.) Dairy No. 11189 of 2020 [7] FIR No. 137 of 2020 [8] (2001) 6 SCC 181 [9] Upkar Singh versus Ved Prakash (2004) 13 SCC 292 Ram Lal Narang versus State (Delhi Administration) (1979) 2 SCC 322 Kari Choudhary versus Mst. Sita Devi (2002) 1 SCC 714 State of Bihar versus JAC Saldanha (1980) 1 SCC 554 Babubhai versus State of Gujarat (2010) 12 SCC 254 Chirra Shivraj versus State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) 14 SCC 444 Chirag M Pathak versus Dollyben Kantilal Patel (2018) 1 SCC 330 [10] P Chidambaram versus Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24
Comments