SC’s Interim Protection to Arnab Goswami: What It Does and Doesn’t Say скачать в хорошем качестве

SC’s Interim Protection to Arnab Goswami: What It Does and Doesn’t Say

The bench’s order is a clear setback to Goswami’s plea to quash the FIRs/complaints registered against him in the wake of the controversial telecast on the Palghar lynching On Friday, a Supreme Court bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah agreed to grant interim protection of three weeks to Republic TV anchor Arnab Goswami against any coercive steps arising out of a First Information Report (FIR) filed over a news telecast on April 21. During the telecast, Goswami had launched into a tirade against Congress president Sonia Gandhi over her alleged “deliberate silence” on the Palghar lynching. The FIR in question – FIR No. 238, dated April 22 – has been transferred from Sadar police station in Nagpur to the N.M. Joshi Marg police station in Mumbai with the mutual consent of all parties involved. The investigation triggered by this FIR has also not been stayed. The bench made it clear that the investigation of the FIR should be allowed to take place in accordance with the law without the Supreme Court deploying its jurisdiction under Article 32 to obstruct the due process of law. The Supreme Court took note of the fact that the N.M. Joshi Marg police station is also where Goswami filed an FIR on April 23 – in relation to his allegation that he and his spouse were obstructed by two persons and subjected to an assault while returning from the studio late at night. The bench, however, stayed further proceedings arising out of and emanating from the remaining FIRs and complaints until further orders. Of these, two FIRs have been registered at different police stations in Durg district, Chhattisgarh and one at Civil Lines police station, Raipur district, Chhattisgarh. Besides, the bench has stayed action on three complaints received by the Chhattisgarh police from three district units of the Congress, one each by the Mumbai and Indore police from the Youth Congress and a Congress party worker respectively, one by Telangana police from the Telangana Youth Congress, one by Ranchi police from the Jharkhand Youth Congress Vice President, one by Madhya Pradesh police from the state Youth Congress, and two complaints received by the Jaipur police from concerned citizens. The bench has also stayed all criminal complaints which have been filed or which may be filed hereafter, with respect to the same incident. The bench granted protection to Goswami only to enable him to move an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and to “pursue such remedies as are available in accordance with law”. Such an application, the bench made it clear, shall be considered on its own merits by the competent court. The bench also directed that in addition to the personal security provided to Goswami, if a request is made by him to the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, for providing adequate security at his residence 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 granted this additional protection to assuage Goswami’s apprehension of a threat to his safety and the safety of his business establishment. The bench stayed the investigation into multifarious complaints and FIRs, and provided interim protection on the basis of the following principles: the need for the law to protect journalistic freedom within the ambit of Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution; and the need to ensure that the criminal process does not assume the character of a vexatious exercise by the institution of multifarious complaints founded on the same cause in multiple states. It is clear that the bench’s order is a setback to Goswami’s plea to quash the FIRs/complaints registered against him in the wake of the controversial telecast. While the bench has stayed the investigation of multifarious complaints/FIRs flowing from the same cause of action, the one registered in Nagpur, which has been transferred to Mumbai, has been left untouched. Indeed, the bench made a special mention of the provisions of Indian Penal Code invoked in the Nagpur FIR (which are similar to other FIRs/complaints as well, and referred to in the order itself) as Sections 153, 153-A, 153-B, 295-A, 298, 500, 504(2), 506, 120-B and 117. Although the senior counsel, Kapil Sibal, representing the state of Maharashtra, did not oppose clubbing the FIRs filed in diverse jurisdictions, and a direction for a common investigation “in the interests of justice”, the bench, in its wisdom, did not do so, as it would have resulted in the investigation being transferred to the CBI or a Special Investigation Team, a prospect which could have brought the impartiality of the investigation under a cloud.