{"id":4044,"date":"2024-12-28T12:58:57","date_gmt":"2024-12-28T07:28:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/?p=4044"},"modified":"2024-12-28T13:03:31","modified_gmt":"2024-12-28T07:33:31","slug":"arnab-ranjan-goswami-vs-union-of-india","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/2024\/12\/28\/arnab-ranjan-goswami-vs-union-of-india\/","title":{"rendered":"ARNAB RANJAN GOSWAMI\u00a0vs UNION OF INDIA"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n

Author AVISHIKTA BISWAS HERITAGE LAW COLLEGE, KOLKAT 9th<\/sup>\u00a0SEMESTER, 5th<\/sup>\u00a0YEAR<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
Case Analysis of Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs Union of India<\/b><\/h5>\n
    \n
  • \n
    FACTS <\/b>:\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
      \n
    1. \n
      In the present case, the petitioner is the Editor-in-chief of a news channel Republic TV and the Managing Director of ARG Outlier Media Asianet News Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Arnab Goswami. The petitioner, that is, Mr. Arnab Goswami is also an anchor of the news shows in Republic TV and R Bharat.\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
    2. \n
      An unfortunate incident occurred in Gadchinchle village of Palghar District in Maharashtra where a mob killed three people, which included two sadhus on 16<\/span>th<\/span> April 2020. Allegedly the killings took place in front of forest guard and police official.\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
    3. \n
      Broadcasts took place on 16<\/span>th<\/span> April and 21<\/span>st<\/span> April 2020 on Republic TV and R Bharat respectively in his news program relating to the incident. These news programs were hosted by Mr. Goswami.<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
    4. \n
      In these shows he raised questions on the investigation of the case, the silence of Sonia Gandhi and whether she would have stayed silent if leaders from other religious groups were being lynched instead of the sadhus who were Hindus.<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
    5. \n
      Thereafter, multiple FIRs and complaints were filed against Mr. Goswami in several states for offences under sections 120B, 153A,153,153B, 295, 298, 500, 504, 506 of the Penal code.\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
    6. \n
      The petitioner also stated, that after the incident a malicious and vindictive campaign took place on social media by the members and activists of Indian National Congress against him.<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
    7. \n
      \u00a0Further an incident also took place with Mr. Goswami wherein while he was returning late at night with his spouse, he was confronted by two people on motorcycle who were allegedly from Indian National Congress.\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
    8. \n
      With a view to protect his freedom of speech and expression, the petitioner Mr. Goswami moved the Supreme Court under Article 32.<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      <\/b><\/h5>\n
        \n
      • \n
        ISSUES INVOLVED :\u00a0<\/b><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
          \n
        1. \n
          Whether the investigation on the case should be transferred to the CBI?<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
        2. \n
          Whether the multiple FIRs against Mr. Goswami be quashed?<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
        3. \n
          Whether Mr. Goswami is liable for protection of his freedom of speech with respect to his statements made on live television?<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          <\/b><\/h5>\n
            \n
          • \n
            LAWS INVOLVED :<\/b><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
              \n
            • \n
              \u00a0INDIAN PENAL CODE:<\/span><\/h5>\n
                \n
              • \n
                Section 120B<\/span> : deals with punishment for a person involved in a criminal conspiracy.<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
              • \n
                Section 153<\/span> : deals with punishment for a person who does anything with the intention to instigate riot.<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
              • \n
                Section 153A<\/span> : deals with punishment for promotion of hatred among people from different groups on the basis of religion, race, place of birth etc.\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
              • \n
                Section 153B<\/span> : deals with punishment for accusations and imputations detrimental to national integration.<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
              • \n
                Section 295<\/span> : deals with contaminating or damaging a house of worship with intention of disparaging any class\u2019s religion.<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
              • \n
                Section 298<\/span> : deals with imprisonment for hurting religious feelings with deliberate intention to do the same.<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
              • \n
                Section 500<\/span> : deals with punishment for defaming.<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
              • \n
                Section 504<\/span> : deals with punishment for insulting any person with intention to provoke breach of peace.<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
              • \n
                Section 506<\/span> : deals with the punishment for the offence of criminal intention<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
              • \n
                CONSTITUTION OF INDIA<\/span><\/h5>\n
                  \n
                • \n
                  Article 32<\/span> : deals with the right to approach the Supreme Court for enforcing fundamental rights.<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
                • \n
                  Article 14<\/span>: deals with the right of citizens to equality\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
                • \n
                  Article 19<\/span>: deals with the fundamental freedom of citizens to free speech and expression,.<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                  <\/b><\/h5>\n
                    \n
                  • \n
                    ARGUMENT OF PETITIONERS :\u00a0<\/b><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
                    The petitioner state that the statements made by the petitioner during the news shows were related to the slow investigation of the entire incident and the silence of the government in this scenario. The petitioner completely denied all allegations of fueling communal tensions.\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
                    The petitioner further states that the FIRs were filed to restrain the expressions and views of the journalist.<\/span><\/h5>\n
                    They, further argue that, the investigation and FIRs are mala fide. That the states where the FIRs have been filed are states which are governed by INC or their supporters. That during the course of investigation, the members and activists of the political party, INC targeted Mr. Goswami in social media through posts. Additionally, the petitioner stated that the police inquiries during the course of investigation did not match the FIR content. The investigation taking place is primarily focused on the defamation of the President of Indian National Congress, however no FIR can be lodged without a complaint by the defamed person himself, according to law.\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
                    Lastly, that the petitioner had criticized the Maharashtra police as well as Government for the poor investigation of the case and made allegations against the Commissioner of Police, therefore the investigation by the Mumbai Police might not be fair.<\/span><\/h5>\n
                    Therefore, the petitioner wants the protection of the petitioner\u2019s constitutional rights by either stopping the investigation or transferring it to CBI.<\/span><\/h5>\n


                    <\/b><\/h5>\n
                      \n
                    • \n
                      ARGUMENT OF RESPONDENTS :<\/b><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
                      the respondent are of the opinion that the Court is improperly objecting to the investigation questions, which is not appropriate. The respondents state that the petitioner do not hold the right to question the investigation process.<\/span><\/h5>\n
                      They further contend that the rights under Article 19(1)(a) are limited by reasonable restrictions, and that the video clips show that the offenses are valid.<\/span><\/h5>\n
                      That the petitioner is trying to disrupt investigation via tweets on social media.<\/span><\/h5>\n
                      The respondents, further contend that the Mumbai\u00a0 do not have any connection with the investigation of the Palghar killings and that the petitioner accused the Mumbai Police only after the interrogation.<\/span><\/h5>\n
                      Further the petitioner has also not moved the High Court for quashing FIRs or seeking anticipatory bail. Further that the Petitioner cannot seek intervention of the Court during an ongoing investigation. Additionally, the transfer of the case to Mumbai Police Station from Nagpur Police Station was requested as well as agreed by the petitioner and that transferring a case to CBI is an extraordinary measure which shall only be taken course of in exceptional cases.<\/span><\/h5>\n
                      Therefore, the petition should not be considered by the court.<\/span><\/h5>\n

                      <\/b><\/h5>\n
                        \n
                      • \n
                        ANALYSIS :\u00a0<\/b><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
                        The Court was of the view that the main reason for the multiple FIRs and complains. They all arose from a single cause of action which was the news show which was broadcasted on R Bharat. The Court held that a second FIR cannot be filed on the same issue. An information which was been received after the investigation for the first FIR has begun cannot result in another FIR. However if the other FIRs are regarding other incidents or is a counter claim, investigation for such FIR is allowed. However, in this case the FIRs relate to one cause further the structure and wordings are also similar in the FIRs.<\/span><\/h5>\n
                        The Court further was of the opinion that, the petitioner being a journalist has the right to express his opinion. It is their duty to speak the truth. However, this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restriction. The burden of multiple complaints against the opinions of journalists is a restriction on their freedom to expression and speech..<\/span><\/h5>\n
                        Further it would be highly unfair if a journalist is subjected to multiple FIRs throughout the country for one cause. Such a situation will result in the petitioner to run from one High Court to the other, leading to harassment. Therefore it requires the Court\u2019s intervention.<\/span><\/h5>\n
                        However, the Petitioner shall not be immune from the investigation of the FIR which has been transferred to Mumbai.\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
                        Additionally, the Court has always transferred an investigation to the CBI is exceptional cases only. However, the petitioner\u2019s social media activity and complainant\u2019s interview are not sufficient grounds to disrupt the investigation, further dissatisfaction of the petitioner with the investigation is not a ground to transfer the investigation, and therefore it is not legally justified to transfer the case to the CBI.<\/span><\/h5>\n
                        It shall also be noted, that an accused cannot govern or choose the method of investigation being carried on. As long as the investigation does not violate the rights of the individual , the investigation agency can carry out the investigation with its own discretion. Further the claims that the Mumbai police might have\u00a0 a conflict of interest in invalid due to comments made regarding the investigation of the Palghar incident, as the investigation of the same is outside the jurisdiction of the Mumbai Police.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n
                        Further the Court held that <\/span>It would be inappropriate to exercise jurisdiction under article 32 for the purpose of the FIR lodged in Mumbai against the petitioner, the petitioner has the remedies to approach the High Court for the same.<\/span><\/h5>\n


                        <\/b><\/h5>\n
                          \n
                        • \n
                          CONCLUSION:<\/b><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
                          The Court therefore held that :<\/span><\/h5>\n
                            \n
                          • \n
                            The court held that accused people do not have the right to choose the investigating agency or the manner of investigation. The Courts can only transfer case to a different agency when it relates to exceptional circumstances. Therefore, the prayer for transferring the investigation is rejected.\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
                          • \n
                            The Court held that the multiple FIRs across the country for the same cause shall be quashed. However the FIR in Mumbai shall stand as it is and must not be quashed. Additionally, no other FIR or complaint shall be filed on the same reason.<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n
                          • \n
                            The Court held that although everyone has a right to freedom of expression and speech, it comes with restrictions. The court did not dismiss the FIR transferred to Mumbai Police Station against the petitioner which was filed for making statements pertaining to religion.\u00a0<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
                            \u00a0<\/h5>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                            Author AVISHIKTA BISWAS HERITAGE LAW COLLEGE, KOLKAT 9th\u00a0SEMESTER, 5th\u00a0YEAR Case Analysis of Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs Union of India FACTS :\u00a0 In the present case, the petitioner is the Editor-in-chief of a news channel Republic TV and the Managing Director of ARG Outlier Media Asianet News Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Arnab Goswami. The petitioner, that is, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3967,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_themeisle_gutenberg_block_has_review":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[98],"tags":[130],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4044"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4044"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4044\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4049,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4044\/revisions\/4049"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3967"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4044"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4044"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4044"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}