Arnab Goswami’s Judgement Case Brief
- shrey singh
- Jun 8, 2020
- 9 min read
Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India
Writ Petition (Crl) No. 130 of 2020 decided on 19th May, 2020
Bench: Dr D.Y. Chandrachud & M.R. Shah, JJ.
Facts:
The petitioner in this case was the Editor-in-Chief of Republic TV and the Managing Director of ARG Outlier Media Asianet News Private Limited which owned and operated R Bharat, channel. The genesis of the involved dispute can be traced back to 16 April 2020, when, a broadcast took place on Republic TV and R Bharat (21st April) which were related to an incident of mob violence which took place at Gadchinchle village of the Palghar district, Maharashtra, wherein two sadhus were brutally killed by a mob.
These broadcasts led to the lodging of multiple First Information Reports and criminal complaints in the states of Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana and Jharkhand and Jammu & Kashmir (UT) against the petitioner.
In total there were about 15 FIRs and multiple criminal complaints in all the above states and UTs which were registered under the following provisions of the Indian Penal Code S.117, S.120, S.120 – B, S.153, S.153 – A, S.153 – B, S.188, S.290, S.295 – A, S.298, S.500, S.504(2), S.505(1), S.505(2), S.506 and S.66 – A of the IT Act. However, the FIR which was primarily discussed by the hon’ble court was the one lodged at Police Station Sadar, District Nagpur City on 22nd April, it was registered as FIR No. 238 of 2020, it was further transferred to the NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai. The hon’ble court stayed the proceedings of all the other FIRs against the petitioner, by passing an interim order, as the charges under which he was booked were similar. Apart from staying this interim order, it also provided some other reliefs to the petitioner like granting liberty to the petitioner to move an application for anticipatory bail before the Bombay High Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, protecting the petitioner against coercive steps arising out of the above FIR in relation to the television show on Palghar incident. This order further directed the Commissioner of Mumbai Police to provide the necessary protection to the petitioner at his residence as well as office. The direction for protection was given by the court, after taking into consideration, the recent attack on the petitioner and his wife, done by two individuals on 23rd April, 2020.
Following this interim order, there were a series of Individual Applications presented before the court regarding various issue, filed by the petitioner as well as the state, which involved issues related to the way of investigation of the police with respect to the FIR and other issues. These applications have been taken into consideration while deciding the judgement of the case.
Issues regarding the other FIR which was registered by the petitioner in response to the attack which was attempted on him and his wife on 23rd April has also been addressed in the Individual Applications submitted to the court. The reliefs sort by the petitioner have been framed in context of the Question of Law and will be mentioned in the next section of this brief.
Question of Law:
Based on the facts of the incidents, FIR reports, Individual Applications submitted by both the sides and the interim order passed by the hon’ble court, the bench had to deal with the following issues: –
1. Deducing the legitimacy of multiple FIRs lodged against the petitioner in various states of the country,
2. Explaining the transfer of FIR from Sadar, District Nagpur City to NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai through an interim order,
3. Addressing the request of the petitioner to transfer the investigation of FIR against the petitioner to the Central Bureau of Investigation,
4. Extent of exercising right to free speech and expression of opinions under Article 19(1) (a) of the constitution,
5. Whether the petition challenging the FIR, under Article 32 is maintainable in the Supreme Court or not.
Held:
(i) First of all, the bench clarified its decision to quash all other FIRs against the petitioner except the one lodged at the NM Joshi Marg Police Station (renumbered as FIR No. 164 of 2020). Based on the case of TT Antony v State of Kerala the court quashed all the other FIRs.
(ii) Secondly, the bench addressed the issue of transfer of the FIR registered at Police Station Sadar, District Nagpur City to NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai which was done by means of an earlier interim order passed by the court. The court asserted that the petitioner, in the exercise of his right under Article 19(1)(a) was not immune from an investigation into the transferred FIR. As per the opinion of the bench a proper balance had to be maintained between the exercise of a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and the investigation for an offence under the CrPC. The court further held that all other FIRs in respect of the same incident constitute a clear abuse of process and must be quashed. The decision of the court in transferring the FIR comes as a response to a request made by the petitioner through and Individual Application.
The reason why the investigation of the FIR was transferred to the NM Joshi Police Station in Mumbai was because that was the police station at which an earlier FIR had been lodged by the petitioner in respect of the incident when he and his spouse were allegedly obstructed by two political activists on their way home at midnight on 23 April 2020.
(iii) The third issue which had to be addressed by the court was regarding the request made by the petitioner to transfer the ongoing investigation, of FIR No. 164 of 2020 (transferred from Police Station Sadar, District Nagpur City to NM Joshi Marg Police Station and renumbered) against the petitioner and FIR No. 148 of 2020 (regarding assault on petitioner and his spouse) lodged by the petitioner to the Central Bureau of Investigation or any other independent investigation agency. The contention of the petitioner behind making such a request was that, he had stated earlier that these complaints against him were vindictive and a malicious campaign launched against him by the Indian National Congress In order to reinforce his claims with facts, the petitioner submitted, in the course of his pleadings, that all the complaints and FIRs have incidentally been lodged in States where the governments which were formed owe allegiance to the INC and that he believes that the law enforcement machinery was being set in motion with an ulterior motive.
Since the court emphasized that such a transfer of investigation was not a matter of routine and such an extraordinary power was to be exercised by the court only in exceptional circumstances. Furthermore, the bench relied on the views of Justice DK Jain in the case of State of West Bengal v Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal (Constitution bench) and Dr Justice B S Chauhan in the case of K V Rajendran v Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai (Full Bench). Accordingly, the court reiterated that an investigation may be transferred to the CBI only in “rare and exceptional cases”. One factor that courts may consider is that such transfer is “imperative” to retain “public confidence in the impartial working of the State agencies.” Addressing the grounds for such a transfer as submitted by the petitioner, the court propounded that mere allegations against the police do not constitute a sufficient basis to transfer the investigation, which was, again supported by the precedent set by a Constitution Bench in the case of CPDR, West Bengal. The principle of law that emerged from the above case was that the power to transfer an investigation must be used “sparingly” and only “in exceptional circumstances”. In assessing the plea urged by the petitioner that the investigation must be transferred to the CBI, the court addressed the grounds on which the petitioner seeks a transfer of the investigation. The grounds
urged for transfer were:
(i) The length of the interrogation which took place on 27 April 2020
(ii) The nature of the inquiries which were addressed to the Petitioner and the CFO and the questions addressed during interrogation;
(iii) The allegations levelled by the petitioner against the failure of the State government to adequately probe the incident at Palghar involving an alleged lynching of two persons in the presence of police and forest department personnel;
(iv) Allegations which have been made by the petitioner on 28 April 2020 in regard to CP, Mumbai; and
(v) Tweets on the social media by activists of the INC and the interview by the complainant to a representative of R Bharat.
The bench observed that the petitioner wanted to pre-empt an investigation by the Mumbai police and held that the basis on which the petitioner seeks to achieve this was untenable and remarked that an accused person does not have a choice in regard to the mode or manner in which the investigation should be carried out or in regard to the investigating agency. The court, relying on the precedent set in the case of State of Bihar v P P Sharma and Dukhishyam Benupani, Asst. Director and Enforcement Directorate (FERA) v Arun Kumar Bajoria, held that as far as the investigation does not violate any provision of law, the investigation agency is vested with the discretion in directing the course of investigation, which includes determining the nature of the questions and the manner of interrogation and that the courts must refrain from passing comments on an ongoing investigation to extend to the investigating agencies the requisite liberty and protection in conducting a fair, transparent and just investigation. As far as the allegations put forward by the petitioner regarding duration of investigation and the nature questions asked in interrogation is concerned, it was held that the investigating agency is entitled to determine the nature of the questions and the period of questioning. Furthermore, the allegation of the Petitioner that there is a conflict of interest arising out of the criticism by him of the alleged failure of the State government to adequately probe the incident at Palghar was not considered valid by the court as the investigation of the Palghar incident was beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Mumbai police.
After assessing all the facts of the case, the court was not able to find any reason that
warrants a transfer of the ongoing investigation to the CBI. The bench also applied
the necessary tests spelt out in the consistent line of precedent of this Court the criteria of which were not fulfilled. Therefore, the bench held that no such transfer of investigation will be done.
(iv) As far as exercising the rights conferred under Article 19(1) (a) are concerned the bench propounded that as Article 32 of the Constitution constitutes a recognition of the constitutional duty entrusted to this Court to protect the fundamental rights of citizens, the exercise of journalistic freedom lies at the core of speech and expression protected by Article 19(1)(a). The bench was motivated by the fact that India’s freedoms will rest safe as long as journalists can speak truth to power without being chilled by a threat of reprisal, in addition to which they also quoted Yuval Noah Harari’s book titled “21 Lessons for the 21st Century” and asserted that “Questions you cannot answer are usually far better for you than answers you cannot question.” Therefore, considering the facts of this case, as the petitioner is a media journalist, airing his views on television shows which he hosts is in the exercise of his fundamental right to speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
Although the bench also pointed out that the exercise of this fundamental right is not absolute and is answerable to the legal regime enacted with reference to the provisions of Article 19(2). 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.
In the present case the court felt that its intervention in this issue was necessary to protect the rights of the petitioner as a citizen and as a journalist to fair treatment (guaranteed by Article 14) and the liberty to conduct an independent portrayal of views. In such a situation to require the petitioner to approach the respective High Courts having jurisdiction for quashing would result into a multiplicity of proceedings and unnecessary harassment to the petitioner, who is a journalist.
(v) While addressing the issue of challenging an FIR under Article 32, the bench held that it would be inappropriate for the court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution for the purpose of quashing FIR 164 of 2020 under investigation at the NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai. Further explaining this decision, the bench held that since there were alternative remedies available to the petitioner under the CrPC, he should have exhausted them first, before invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Article 32. Also, as the High Court has power under Section 482 to deal with such issues, there is no reason to by-pass the procedure under the CrPC. Due to lack of any exceptional grounds or reasons to entertain this petition under Article 32 it cannot be considered to be maintainable in this court. The court further advised the petitioner to take up this matter with the respective HC.
Comments