Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs Union Of India  AIR 2020 SC 2386

ABSTRACT 

In the recent time in 2020, a matter involving the congress Party and Arnab Ranjan Goswami  with regards to the news on Palghar incident. Arnab raised several questions relating to  incident. This broadcasting led to several criminal complaints against Mr. Arnab in  Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, Jharkhand and Jammu and  Kashmir. All these are congress leading states and union territories. Arnab as a petitioner  contented that it was an attempt to misuse enforcement machinery with ulterior motives. Hence,  Arnab Ranjan Goswami approaches to the Supreme Court seeking relief of quashing multiple  FIRs and seeking protection. 

INTRODUCTION 

The press is the fourth mainstay of a majority rules government after the Legislature, Executive  and Judiciary. It is impossible to imagine a proper functioning of the public power without open  and fair political discourse. In the Indian express Vs. Association of India1case, it was decided  that as the press plays a particularly significant role in a voting-based democracy, judges should  constantly uphold the right of the press. 

Everyone has the fundamental right to express their viewpoint on pressing issues, and  columnists are an essential component of this particular framework. Political people and  experts frequently use governmental equipment to weaken the potential of media, despite the  courts’ best efforts to keep this spotless. This case is important because of how well-known  journalist Arnab R. Goswami was harassed by several FIRs. 

Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, provides for  freedom of Speech and Expression. This case deals with the protection of certain rights  regarding freedom of speech, etc. Freedom of press not only makes democracy functional but  is quintessential for an informed citizenry. When any person or a journalist are harassed by any  other person or by any political entities through state machinery or by any other means, his or  her constitutional rights is evaded and it also effect the criminal jurisprudence. 

Literature Review 

The literature surrounding the case explores several key themes: 

1. Press Freedom in India: Scholars such as Madhav Khosla and Rukmini S. argue that  India’s press has faced increasing pressures from state actions, with cases like  Goswami’s exemplifying the tensions between state authority and journalistic freedom. 
2. Legal Protections for Journalists: Works by authors like Nandini Sundar discuss the  legal frameworks protecting journalists, emphasizing the need for robust protections  against arbitrary state actions. 
3. Public Interest vs. Privacy: The debate on the public’s right to know versus individual  privacy rights is well-documented by authors like Richard Posner, who argue that public  interest should sometimes take precedence over privacy in journalistic reporting. 
4. Impact of Sensationalism: Literature by authors such as K. S. Dutta highlights the  implications of sensational journalism on public discourse and the ethical  responsibilities of media professionals. 

Research Question 

How does the case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India reflect the tension between  press freedom and privacy rights in India? 

Research Objectives 

1. To analyse the legal implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling on press freedom. 2. To evaluate the impact of state actions on journalistic practices in India. 
2. To assess the balance between public interest and individual privacy rights in media  reporting. 

Data Collection 

Primary Data

• Court Documents: Analysis of the Supreme Court judgment and related legal  documents. 
• Interviews: saw interviews with legal experts, journalists, and media ethicists regarding  the case and its implications. 

Secondary Data 

• Scholarly Articles: Reviewed existing literature on press freedom, privacy rights, and  case law in India. 
• Media Reports: Analysed news articles and opinion pieces discussing the case and its  broader societal impact. 

Hypothesis 

The ruling in the case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India indicates that the Indian judiciary  aims to uphold press freedoms in the face of governmental overreach, suggesting a judicial preference  for protecting journalistic practices over privacy concerns in matters of public interest. 

Facts of the case 

The Supreme Court decided on the Criminal Writ Petition2filed by Mr. Arnab Goswami, the  Editor-in-Chief of Republic TV, in the court of law. He anchors on both Republic TV (English)  and R Bharat, a Hindi news channel owned by ARG Outlier Media Asianet News Private  Limited which is managed by him as the CEO and Managing Director. Multiple FIRs and  criminal charges were filed against Mr. Goswami in the states of Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh,  Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, Jharkhand, and the UT of Jammu & Kashmir  following the airing of two programmes on Republic TV on April 16th and 21st, 2020. 

The discussions in question involved Mr. Goswami referring to an incident known as the  Palghar Lynching. The incident occurred on April 16th, 2020 in Gadchinchle town, Palghar  District, Maharashtra. The vile act allegedly involved three people being brutally beaten to  death by a mob, two of them were Sadhus, in the presence of police officials and forest guard  officials. He addressed Sonia Gandhi’s silence on the primary point wherein three of them were  lynched by locals on suspicion of them being thieves while on their way to Silvassa; inquiring   if she would have remained as tight-lipped if Muslim or Christian religious leaders had been  lynched instead of Hindus. 

Mr. Goswami went on to ask pertinent questions claiming that a well-coordinated and nasty  campaign had been undertaken. Several members of the Indian National Congress (INC)  submitted charges for offences allegedly committed under Sections 153, 153A, 1538, 295A,  298, 500, 504, 506, and 1208 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 

Mr. Goswami also mentioned an event on April 23, 2020, between 12:30 and 1:00 a.m., when  he was driving home with his wife and was confronted and assaulted by two people on a  motorcycle. Both of them are claimed to have admitted to being members of the INC. The  petitioner thus rejected the propagation of any religious beliefs. 

In consequence, the petitioner moved to the court under Article 32 for protection of his  fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the  Constitution. 

Procedural History 

The petitioner filed an interim Application alleging that the Mumbai police are not undertaking  a fair and equitable investigation, and that the investigation is political in nature, humiliating  the petitioner and his kin. He requested that the case be transferred to the Central Bureau of  Investigation from the Mumbai Police.  

He sought protection at his workplace and residence. Further, he asked for a writ of prohibition  against the state of Maharashtra to prevent them from filing an FIR with regard to the telecast. 

On the 25th of April, 2020, the petitioner was summoned to the Police station as per section 41  (a) of the ode of Criminal procedure. The former expressed his willingness to appear before  the officers through videoconferencing, keeping in mind the COVID 19 pandemic. This request  was rejected and Mr. Goswami went to the police station where he was questioned vigorously  by the Mumbai police for around 12 hours with very little breaks. He alleged that the police  did not allow him to use his phone. He stated that the interrogation was on a very small segment  of the telecast’s entirety which went on repeatedly and was largely pointless.

The Mumbai police retaliated with an application of their own. They alleged that Arnab  Goswami is causing an obstruction in the path of the investigation. The acts mentioned were  the posts on Republic Bharat’s Twitter profile and the petitioner’s attempt to portray the  Mumbai police of being biased. After the 12 hours of questioning, Mr. Goswami went on live  television and spoke about the case and questioning. Further, he went on to accuse the Mumbai  Commissioner of Police of playing a part in the India Bulls Scams. 

The interim order to a large extent went in favour of Arnab Goswami. He was to be shielded  from coercion for three weeks from the date of the verdict. The order also stated that if Mr.  Goswami makes a request for security at his workplace or residence, the Mumbai  Commissioner of Police would have to grant him the same. The police were asked to assess the  threat to Arnab’s life and provide required protection. This order also gave the petitioner the  right to file for Anticipatory bail in the Bombay High Court as per section 438 of the CrPC,  1973. The court also stayed all FIRs brought against Mr. Goswami. The case was taken in the  Supreme Court of India on the 19th of May, 2020 

Interim Order (24.04.2020) 

Mr. Arnab Goswami will be shielded from coercion for three weeks from the date of the verdict,  according to the court. Except for one FIR lodged in Nagpur and now transferred to Mumbai,  the Court halted all FIRs filed against Mr. Goswami. 

In addition to the personal security provided to Mr. Goswami, the court ordered that if he makes  a request to the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, for adequate security at his residence or the  studio of Republic TV in Mumbai, such a request be expeditiously considered and police  protection be provided as per the threat perception if considered appropriate, which shall  continue until the threat subsides. 

It also gave the petitioner the right to file an anticipatory bail plea with the Bombay High Court  under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and to pursue any other legal  remedies. 

Issues

• Whether Mr. Goswami can get the case investigated by authority of his preference? • Whether the Courts can consolidate the various similar FIRs under Article 32? 

Whether the statements made by Mr. Goswami on live television are protected by Article  19(1)(a) or can be limited by the restrictions of Article 19(2)? 

Contentions from both sides 

Petitioner 

• In view of the petition filed under Article 32, It was stated that the dialogue he held on  live television was solely to analyse the shoddy investigation of the Palghar Lynching  Incident and the contradicting opinions of the authorities as well as the State  Government’s silence. 
• Questions were raised regarding the government’s authority in Maharashtra with  regards to the fact that the horrendous incident took place in front of police officials. • The claim of proliferating communal perceptions was refuted by the lawyer. • The court was requested to declare his unequivocal freedom of speech and expression  under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. 
• It was stated that the inquiry into the case was biased and unjust as the inquiry approach  drew everyone to the conclusion that the authorities were pulling a fast one  on the petitioner. 
• He was also challenging the Maharashtra police’s delay in the Palghar event, and that  as the institution was controlled by the state government, as a result contributing to a  pronounced conflict of interest. 
• The principal reliefs sought were the dismissal of all complaints and FIRs filed against  Mr. Goswami in various states, as well as a request from the Union Government for  safety for his family. 

Respondents

• The Mumbai Police claimed that the petitioner’s actions were obstructing the  investigation. 
• It sprang from the fact that Mr. Goswami was accompanied by a multitude of columnists  when he was headed to the NM Joshi Marg Police Station. 
• After four hours of questioning, Republic Bharat’s Twitter account released a message  saying, “Truth shall triumph” along with some other remarks that were delivered live  on television. 
• On Republic Bharat’s Twitter account, further tweets were delivered, giving the  impression that the Mumbai police are biased. 
• The accusation was that the investigating agency was under persistent pressure, causing  the investigation to come to a halt. 

Ratio Decidendi 

• Issue 1 – The Accused cannot choose the investigating agency as that is against the  principles of natural justice. 
• Issue 2 – The court can quash all FIRs except the first one because there are no new  aspects of the case being brought up in the various FIRs 
• Issue 3 – Freedom of expression is a fundamental right. The case of incitement of  communal tensions cannot be dismissed but another competent court may rule on the  same after an investigation. Freedom of press is of absolute importance. 

Consolidation of FIRS 

The court rejected all other identical FIRs filed against Arnab Goswami in different states, with  the exception of the one filed in Nagpur, which has now been transferred to Mumbai. 

The court further observed the case of TT Antony v. the State of Kerala ((2001) 6 SCC 181),  in which the court determined that subjecting an individual to multiple proceedings for the  same offence is inconsistent with the provisions as mentioned in the Constitution.

When a counter-case is filed, the Court determined that conducting a new investigation based on a related cognizable offence would be an “abuse of the statutory power of  Investigation” and could be construed as justified for exercising power under Section 482 of  the Criminal Procedure Code or Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. 

It was established in Ram Lal Narang and Ors v. The State that a new FIR might be filed on  the same subject. This is the case as long as the second report contains fresh Information and  information about the case that was not included in the original report. 

It was stated that no other FIR or complaint, as the case may be, shall be filed or pursued in  any other forum in connection with the same cause of action arising from the petitioner’s  broadcast on R Bharat on April 21, 2020. 

• Additionally, all other FIRs or complaints filed in connection with the same cause of action  were also deemed unmaintainable. 

Can he be protected under Article 19(1)(a) for the statements made on live television 

• Article 19(1)(a) promises freedom of speech and expression; however, this right cannot be  used to tarnish the religious sentiments of the people. 

The court refused to dismiss the FIR filed against Mr. Goswami for allegedly wounding  religious sentiments on his channel Republic TV during a show by making disparaging  comments about a religious community. 

Personal Analysis 

In such circumstances where it can be demonstrated that the state government is acting  maliciously, precedent has been set. Seven persons were allegedly kidnapped by a senior police  official with the rank of deputy superintendent and a few other police officers, according to the  Inder Singh v. State of Punjab3case. 

After a protracted period of silence from the abducted individuals, a complaint was filed with  the state’s DGP. The issue was brought to the attention of the Inspector General by the  Superintendent of Police’s P. A4.  

The Superintendent of Police’s office recommended that a section 364 of the IPC be used to  bring a case against the authorities. Despite this, no case was filed. At this time, a writ petition  asking for a thorough and impartial investigation into the incident was submitted to the Apex Court.  

The CBI was ordered to carry out an impartial inquiry by the court, which granted this motion.  In situations where a police encounter resulted in the deaths of ten persons, the SC has also  issued comparable orders.  

Conclusion 

The Universal declaration of Human Rights states that every individual has the right to freedom  of opinion and expression. The court in this case however, refused to rule on Mr. Goswami’s  FIR for allegedly hurting religious sentiments by making disparaging remarks about a religious  community. While the court’s opinion that a journalist must have the freedom to seek, receive  and speak about opinions and facts, he cannot injure religious sentiments. The press was rightly  declared as the guardians of democracy. 

In the Maneka Gandhi case, it was held that any denial or limitation imposed on a person’s  fundamental right has to be reasonable and not arbitrary. Another Notable case is the PUCL v.  Union of India5in which it was clarified that Article 19 (1) (a) grants citizens the right to  freedom of speech and expression. Freedom in most contexts means the ability to express one’s opinions and thoughts through speech or other forms of publication. 

As stated earlier, if there was one thing the courts could have done differently, it was  transferring the case to the CBI. This was indeed an exceptional case where the state  government had shown some signs of malice. If every journalist were to be questioned for  questioning a government’s silence, we would have no members of press left to report freely. 

REFERENCES 

• https://lawfoyer.in/arnab-ranjan-goswami-v-union-of-india-and-others/ • https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-6991-arnab-ranjan-goswami-v-union of-india-2020-14-scc-12-irac-analysis.html 
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/188030871/ 
• https://blog.ipleaders.in/arnab-ranjan-goswami-v-union-indian-others/