{"id":4693,"date":"2025-04-23T22:06:34","date_gmt":"2025-04-23T16:36:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/?p=4693"},"modified":"2025-04-23T22:27:22","modified_gmt":"2025-04-23T16:57:22","slug":"arnab-ranjan-goswami-vs-union-of-india-air-2020-sc-2386","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/2025\/04\/23\/arnab-ranjan-goswami-vs-union-of-india-air-2020-sc-2386\/","title":{"rendered":"Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs Union Of India \u00a0AIR 2020 SC 2386"},"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

<\/p>\n

Author – Mayank Sharma, a 5th Year law student at ICFAI University 
Co author – Dr. Vivek Kumar (Asst. professor, ICFAI University)<\/h5>\n

<\/p>\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

ABSTRACT\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

In the recent time in 2020, a matter involving the congress Party and Arnab Ranjan Goswami\u00a0 with regards to the news on Palghar incident. Arnab raised several questions relating to\u00a0 incident. This broadcasting led to several criminal complaints against Mr. Arnab in\u00a0 Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, Jharkhand and Jammu and\u00a0 Kashmir. All these are congress leading states and union territories. Arnab as a petitioner\u00a0 contented that it was an attempt to misuse enforcement machinery with ulterior motives. Hence,\u00a0 Arnab Ranjan Goswami approaches to the Supreme Court seeking relief of quashing multiple\u00a0 FIRs and seeking protection.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

INTRODUCTION<\/b>\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

The press is the fourth mainstay of a majority rules government after the Legislature, Executive\u00a0 and Judiciary. It is impossible to imagine a proper functioning of the public power without open\u00a0 and fair political discourse. In the Indian express Vs. Association of India<\/span>1<\/span>case, it was decided\u00a0 that as the press plays a particularly significant role in a voting-based democracy, judges should\u00a0 constantly uphold the right of the press.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Everyone has the fundamental right to express their viewpoint on pressing issues, and\u00a0 columnists are an essential component of this particular framework. Political people and\u00a0 experts frequently use governmental equipment to weaken the potential of media, despite the\u00a0 courts\u2019 best efforts to keep this spotless. This case is important because of how well-known\u00a0 journalist Arnab R. Goswami was harassed by several FIRs.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, provides for\u00a0 freedom of Speech and Expression. This case deals with the protection of certain rights\u00a0 regarding freedom of speech, etc. Freedom of press not only makes democracy functional but\u00a0 is quintessential for an informed citizenry. When any person or a journalist are harassed by any\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>other person or by any political entities through state machinery or by any other means, his or\u00a0 her constitutional rights is evaded and it also effect the criminal jurisprudence.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Literature Review<\/b>\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

The literature surrounding the case explores several key themes:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Press Freedom in India: Scholars such as Madhav Khosla and Rukmini S. argue that\u00a0 India\u2019s press has faced increasing pressures from state actions, with cases like\u00a0 Goswami\u2019s exemplifying the tensions between state authority and journalistic freedom.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. Legal Protections for Journalists: Works by authors like Nandini Sundar discuss the\u00a0 legal frameworks protecting journalists, emphasizing the need for robust protections\u00a0 against arbitrary state actions.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
  3. Public Interest vs. Privacy: The debate on the public\u2019s right to know versus individual\u00a0 privacy rights is well-documented by authors like Richard Posner, who argue that public\u00a0 interest should sometimes take precedence over privacy in journalistic reporting.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
  4. Impact of Sensationalism: Literature by authors such as K. S. Dutta highlights the\u00a0 implications of sensational journalism on public discourse and the ethical\u00a0 responsibilities of media professionals.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Research Question<\/b>\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

    How does the case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India reflect the tension between\u00a0 press freedom and privacy rights in India?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    Research Objectives<\/b>\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

      \n
    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.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
    2. To assess the balance between public interest and individual privacy rights in media\u00a0 reporting.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Data Collection<\/b>\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

      Primary Data<\/span><\/p>\n

        \n
      • Court Documents: Analysis of the Supreme Court judgment and related legal\u00a0 documents.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
      • Interviews: saw interviews with legal experts, journalists, and media ethicists regarding\u00a0 the case and its implications.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

        Secondary Data\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

          \n
        • Scholarly Articles: Reviewed existing literature on press freedom, privacy rights, and\u00a0 case law in India.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
        • Media Reports: Analysed news articles and opinion pieces discussing the case and its\u00a0 broader societal impact.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

          Hypothesis\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

          The ruling in the case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India indicates that the Indian judiciary\u00a0 aims to uphold press freedoms in the face of governmental overreach, suggesting a judicial preference\u00a0 for protecting journalistic practices over privacy concerns in matters of public interest.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

          Facts of the case<\/b>\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

          The Supreme Court decided on the Criminal Writ Petition<\/span>2<\/span>filed by Mr. Arnab Goswami, the\u00a0 Editor-in-Chief of Republic TV, in the court of law. He anchors on both Republic TV (English)\u00a0 and R Bharat, a Hindi news channel owned by ARG Outlier Media Asianet News Private\u00a0 Limited which is managed by him as the CEO and Managing Director. Multiple FIRs and\u00a0 criminal charges were filed against Mr. Goswami in the states of Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh,\u00a0 Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, Jharkhand, and the UT of Jammu & Kashmir\u00a0 following the airing of two programmes on Republic TV on April 16th and 21st, 2020.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

          The discussions in question involved Mr. Goswami referring to an incident known as the\u00a0 Palghar Lynching. The incident occurred on April 16th, 2020 in Gadchinchle town, Palghar\u00a0 District, Maharashtra. The vile act allegedly involved three people being brutally beaten to\u00a0 death by a mob, two of them were Sadhus, in the presence of police officials and forest guard\u00a0 officials. He addressed Sonia Gandhi’s silence on the primary point wherein three of them were\u00a0 lynched by locals on suspicion of them being thieves while on their way to Silvassa; inquiring\u00a0 \u00a0<\/span>if she would have remained as tight-lipped if Muslim or Christian religious leaders had been\u00a0 lynched instead of Hindus.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

          Mr. Goswami went on to ask pertinent questions claiming that a well-coordinated and nasty\u00a0 campaign had been undertaken. Several members of the Indian National Congress (INC)\u00a0 submitted charges for offences allegedly committed under Sections 153, 153A, 1538, 295A,\u00a0 298, 500, 504, 506, and 1208 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

          Mr. Goswami also mentioned an event on April 23, 2020, between 12:30 and 1:00 a.m., when\u00a0 he was driving home with his wife and was confronted and assaulted by two people on a\u00a0 motorcycle. Both of them are claimed to have admitted to being members of the INC. The\u00a0 petitioner thus rejected the propagation of any religious beliefs.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

          In consequence, the petitioner moved to the court under Article 32 for protection of his\u00a0 fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the\u00a0 Constitution.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

          Procedural History<\/b>\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

          The petitioner filed an interim Application alleging that the Mumbai police are not undertaking\u00a0 a fair and equitable investigation, and that the investigation is political in nature, humiliating\u00a0 the petitioner and his kin. He requested that the case be transferred to the Central Bureau of\u00a0 Investigation from the Mumbai Police.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

          He sought protection at his workplace and residence. Further, he asked for a writ of prohibition\u00a0 against the state of Maharashtra to prevent them from filing an FIR with regard to the telecast.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

          On the 25th of April, 2020, the petitioner was summoned to the Police station as per section 41\u00a0 (a) of the ode of Criminal procedure. The former expressed his willingness to appear before\u00a0 the officers through videoconferencing, keeping in mind the COVID 19 pandemic. This request\u00a0 was rejected and Mr. Goswami went to the police station where he was questioned vigorously\u00a0 by the Mumbai police for around 12 hours with very little breaks. He alleged that the police\u00a0 did not allow him to use his phone. He stated that the interrogation was on a very small segment\u00a0 of the telecast’s entirety which went on repeatedly and was largely pointless.<\/span><\/p>\n

          The Mumbai police retaliated with an application of their own. They alleged that Arnab\u00a0 Goswami is causing an obstruction in the path of the investigation. The acts mentioned were\u00a0 the posts on Republic Bharat’s Twitter profile and the petitioner’s attempt to portray the\u00a0 Mumbai police of being biased. After the 12 hours of questioning, Mr. Goswami went on live\u00a0 television and spoke about the case and questioning. Further, he went on to accuse the Mumbai\u00a0 Commissioner of Police of playing a part in the India Bulls Scams.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

          The interim order to a large extent went in favour of Arnab Goswami. He was to be shielded\u00a0 from coercion for three weeks from the date of the verdict. The order also stated that if Mr.\u00a0 Goswami makes a request for security at his workplace or residence, the Mumbai\u00a0 Commissioner of Police would have to grant him the same. The police were asked to assess the\u00a0 threat to Arnab’s life and provide required protection. This order also gave the petitioner the\u00a0 right to file for Anticipatory bail in the Bombay High Court as per section 438 of the CrPC,\u00a0 1973. The court also stayed all FIRs brought against Mr. Goswami. The case was taken in the\u00a0 Supreme Court of India on the 19th of May, 2020\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

          Interim Order (24.04.2020)<\/b>\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

          Mr. Arnab Goswami will be shielded from coercion for three weeks from the date of the verdict,\u00a0 according to the court. Except for one FIR lodged in Nagpur and now transferred to Mumbai,\u00a0 the Court halted all FIRs filed against Mr. Goswami.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

          In addition to the personal security provided to Mr. Goswami, the court ordered that if he makes\u00a0 a request to the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, for adequate security at his residence or the\u00a0 studio of Republic TV in Mumbai, such a request be expeditiously considered and police\u00a0 protection be provided as per the threat perception if considered appropriate, which shall\u00a0 continue until the threat subsides.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

          It also gave the petitioner the right to file an anticipatory bail plea with the Bombay High Court\u00a0 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and to pursue any other legal\u00a0 remedies.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

          Issues<\/b><\/p>\n

            \n
          • Whether Mr. Goswami can get the case investigated by authority of his preference? <\/span>\u2022 <\/span>Whether the Courts can consolidate the various similar FIRs under Article 32?\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

            Whether the statements made by Mr. Goswami on live television are protected by Article\u00a0 19(1)(a) or can be limited by the restrictions of Article 19(2)?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

            Contentions from both sides\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

            Petitioner\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

              \n
            • In view of the petition filed under Article 32, It was stated that the dialogue he held on\u00a0 live television was solely to analyse the shoddy investigation of the Palghar Lynching\u00a0 Incident and the contradicting opinions of the authorities as well as the State\u00a0 Government’s silence.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
            • Questions were raised regarding the government’s authority in Maharashtra with\u00a0 regards to the fact that the horrendous incident took place in front of police officials. <\/span>\u2022 <\/span>The claim of proliferating communal perceptions was refuted by the lawyer. <\/span>\u2022 <\/span>The court was requested to declare his unequivocal freedom of speech and expression\u00a0 under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
            • It was stated that the inquiry into the case was biased and unjust as the inquiry approach\u00a0 drew everyone to the conclusion that the authorities were pulling a fast one\u00a0 on the petitioner.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
            • He was also challenging the Maharashtra police’s delay in the Palghar event, and that\u00a0 as the institution was controlled by the state government, as a result contributing to a\u00a0 pronounced conflict of interest.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
            • The principal reliefs sought were the dismissal of all complaints and FIRs filed against\u00a0 Mr. Goswami in various states, as well as a request from the Union Government for\u00a0 safety for his family.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

              Respondents<\/b><\/p>\n

                \n
              • The Mumbai Police claimed that the petitioner’s actions were obstructing the\u00a0 investigation.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
              • It sprang from the fact that Mr. Goswami was accompanied by a multitude of columnists\u00a0 when he was headed to the NM Joshi Marg Police Station.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
              • After four hours of questioning, Republic Bharat’s Twitter account released a message\u00a0 saying, “Truth shall triumph” along with some other remarks that were delivered live\u00a0 on television.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
              • On Republic Bharat’s Twitter account, further tweets were delivered, giving the\u00a0 impression that the Mumbai police are biased.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
              • The accusation was that the investigating agency was under persistent pressure, causing\u00a0 the investigation to come to a halt.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                Ratio Decidendi\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

                  \n
                • Issue 1 – The Accused cannot choose the investigating agency as that is against the\u00a0 principles of natural justice.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
                • Issue 2 – The court can quash all FIRs except the first one because there are no new\u00a0 aspects of the case being brought up in the various FIRs\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
                • Issue 3 – Freedom of expression is a fundamental right. The case of incitement of\u00a0 communal tensions cannot be dismissed but another competent court may rule on the\u00a0 same after an investigation. Freedom of press is of absolute importance.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                  Consolidation of FIRS<\/b>\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

                  The court rejected all other identical FIRs filed against Arnab Goswami in different states, with\u00a0 the exception of the one filed in Nagpur, which has now been transferred to Mumbai.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                  The court further observed the case of TT Antony v. the State of Kerala ((2001) 6 SCC 181),\u00a0 in which the court determined that subjecting an individual to multiple proceedings for the\u00a0 same offence is inconsistent with the provisions as mentioned in the Constitution.<\/span><\/p>\n

                  When a counter-case is filed, the Court determined that conducting a new investigation\u00a0<\/span>based on a related cognizable offence would be an “abuse of the statutory power of\u00a0 Investigation” and could be construed as justified for exercising power under Section 482 of\u00a0 the Criminal Procedure Code or Articles 226\/227 of the Constitution.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                  It was established in Ram Lal Narang and Ors v. The State that a new FIR might be filed on\u00a0 the same subject. This is the case as long as the second report contains fresh Information and\u00a0 information about the case that was not included in the original report.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                  It was stated that no other FIR or complaint, as the case may be, shall be filed or pursued in\u00a0 any other forum in connection with the same cause of action arising from the petitioner’s\u00a0 broadcast on R Bharat on April 21, 2020.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                    \n
                  • Additionally, all other FIRs or complaints filed in connection with the same cause of action\u00a0 were also deemed unmaintainable.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                    Can he be protected under Article 19(1)(a) for the statements made on live television\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                      \n
                    • Article 19(1)(a) promises freedom of speech and expression; however, this right cannot be\u00a0 used to tarnish the religious sentiments of the people.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                      The court refused to dismiss the FIR filed against Mr. Goswami for allegedly wounding\u00a0 religious sentiments on his channel Republic TV during a show by making disparaging\u00a0 comments about a religious community.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                      Personal Analysis<\/b>\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

                      In such circumstances where it can be demonstrated that the state government is acting\u00a0 maliciously, precedent has been set. Seven persons were allegedly kidnapped by a senior police\u00a0 official with the rank of deputy superintendent and a few other police officers, according to the\u00a0 Inder Singh v. State of Punjab<\/span>3<\/span>case.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                      After a protracted period of silence from the abducted individuals, a complaint was filed with\u00a0 the state’s DGP. The issue was brought to the attention of the Inspector General by the\u00a0 Superintendent of Police’s P. A<\/span>4<\/span>.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                      The Superintendent of Police’s office recommended that a section 364 of the IPC be used to\u00a0 bring a case against the authorities. Despite this, no case was filed. At this time, a writ petition\u00a0 asking for a thorough and impartial investigation into the incident was submitted to the Apex Court.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                      The CBI was ordered to carry out an impartial inquiry by the court, which granted this motion.\u00a0 In situations where a police encounter resulted in the deaths of ten persons, the SC has also\u00a0 issued comparable orders.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                      Conclusion\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

                      The Universal declaration of Human Rights states that every individual has the right to freedom\u00a0 of opinion and expression. The court in this case however, refused to rule on Mr. Goswami’s\u00a0 FIR for allegedly hurting religious sentiments by making disparaging remarks about a religious\u00a0 community. While the court’s opinion that a journalist must have the freedom to seek, receive\u00a0 and speak about opinions and facts, he cannot injure religious sentiments. The press was rightly\u00a0 declared as the guardians of democracy.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                      In the Maneka Gandhi case, it was held that any denial or limitation imposed on a person’s\u00a0 fundamental right has to be reasonable and not arbitrary. Another Notable case is the PUCL v.\u00a0 Union of India<\/span>5<\/span>in which it was clarified that Article 19 (1) (a) grants citizens the right to\u00a0 freedom of speech and expression. Freedom in most contexts means the ability to express one\u2019s opinions and thoughts through speech or other forms of publication.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                      As stated earlier, if there was one thing the courts could have done differently, it was\u00a0 transferring the case to the CBI. This was indeed an exceptional case where the state\u00a0 government had shown some signs of malice. If every journalist were to be questioned for\u00a0 questioning a government’s silence, we would have no members of press left to report freely.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                      REFERENCES<\/b>\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

                        \n
                      • https:\/\/lawfoyer.in\/arnab-ranjan-goswami-v-union-of-india-and-others\/ <\/span>\u2022 <\/span>https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/legal\/article-6991-arnab-ranjan-goswami-v-union of-india-2020-14-scc-12-irac-analysis.html\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
                      • https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/188030871\/\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
                      • https:\/\/blog.ipleaders.in\/arnab-ranjan-goswami-v-union-indian-others\/<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\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 – Mayank Sharma, a 5th Year law student at ICFAI University Co author – Dr. Vivek Kumar (Asst. professor, ICFAI University) ABSTRACT\u00a0 In the recent time in 2020, a matter involving the congress Party and Arnab Ranjan Goswami\u00a0 with regards to the news on Palghar incident. Arnab raised several questions relating to\u00a0 incident. This broadcasting […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4056,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[96],"tags":[187,185],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4693"}],"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=4693"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4693\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4703,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4693\/revisions\/4703"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4056"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4693"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4693"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4693"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}