New Delhi ,23 May 2020
Republic TV founder Arnab Goswami dominated media headlines for all sorts of wrong reasons. Fearing arrest on two occasions, the controversial anchor hired some of the most expensive lawyers in the country to approach the Supreme Court seeking relief. While the Supreme Court granted him a six-week protection from arrest, the scathing observation by the top court in its final judgment will give Goswami sleepless nights.
Goswami had first hired former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi as his lawyer. Rohatgi succeeded in securing a three-week protection for his client. Goswami’s choice of lawyer for the second time was Harish Salve, who made a passionate plea in favour of his client, but couldn’t quite succeed in convincing the Supreme Court Bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and MR Shah.
The verdict came as a huge setback for the controversial TV anchor after days of criticism from the news consuming public and entertainment artists such as Mulk director Anubhav Sinha, actress Kavita Kaushik and Saif Ali Khan’s co-star Kubbra Sait.
Goswami is facing a criminal investigation for allegedly promoting communal disharmony through his coverage of the Palghar lynching, which saw two Hindi monks being mercilessly killed by an enraged mob. He was accused of adding communal colour to what was an act of mindless violence. This despite Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh’s clarification that the religious background of all those arrested (over 100 of them) for killing two Hindu monks and their driver was the same as the murdered seers. This aptly clarified that there was no Hindu-Muslim angle to the monks’ murder as projected by Goswami through his broadcast.
In his high-octane TV debate broadcast on Republic Bharat on 21 April (Watch below), Arnab Goswami had also questioned the likes of Bollywood personalities such as Naseeruddin Shah, Javed Akhtar and Shabana Azmi for remaining silent. He had said, “Those who beat their chests for a particular community (Muslims), are silent today.”
During the hearing in the Supreme Court on 11 May, Goswami’s lawyer Harish Salve made a fierce argument invoking freedom of expression enshrined in the Indian constitution. Salve said that his petition on behalf of Goswami raised ‘wider issues’ implicating the freedom of speech and expression of a journalist to air views that fall within the protective ambit of Article 19(1)(a). Salve argued that his client Goswami was justified in invoking this jurisdiction and it was necessary for the top court to lay down safeguards that protect the democratic interest in fearless and independent journalism.
The Supreme Court Bench appeared to only partially agree with his argument but made scathing notes in its judgment.
It said, “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 that fundamental right is not absolute and is answerable to the legal regime enacted with reference to the provisions of Article 19(2).”
The Supreme Court Bench of Justice Chandrachud and Shah also reminded Goswami that his profession as a journalist did not confer additional privileges to him than that of ordinary citizens. It said, “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. But we must as a society never forget that one cannot exist without the other. Free citizens cannot exist when the news media is chained to adhere to one position.”
The court made scathing notes while rejecting Arnab Goswami’s plea to transfer the investigation from the Mumbai Police to the CBI, which reports to the BJP government at the Centre. The Bench said;
The Judges did not stop here. They schooled Goswami explaining why he was being way too unreasonable in his expectation to have the criminal investigation transferred from the Mumbai Police to the CBI. The verdict said;
Then came a crude reminder for Goswami that the Republic TV founder mustn’t forget that he was an accused and had ‘no say in the matter of appointment of the investigating agency.’ Goswami’s lawyer had complained that the Mumbai Police had grilled the Republic TV CFO for 6 hours, asking what relation a CFO would have with a news broadcast that allegedly disturbed communal harmony. Salve also said that Goswami was grilled for over 12 hours, adding that the nature of the FIR showed it was ‘an arm twisting tactic.’
The Supreme Court rejected that assertion as it explained in great detail. It said;
The judgment authored by Justices Chandrachud and Shah also held that ‘so long 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.’
The Supreme Court Bench also said that it disagreed with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta who too had favoured transferring the investigation from the Mumbai Police to the CBI.
The top court was referring to the application moved by the Maharashtra government seeking appropriate directions to insulate the investigating agency ‘from any pressure, threat or coercion from’ Goswami. The Maharashtra Police had referred to tweets posted by Goswami’s TV channel Republic Bharat attempting to intimidate the investigating agency wielding his media power. One of the tweets posted by Republic Bharat on 26 April had said that Goswami will make himself available for questioning but the cops should also show a similar urgency to the FIR filed by him in connection with the alleged attack on him and his wife.
Supreme Court terms Goswami’s allegation ‘unsubstantiated’
Much to the disappointment of Goswami, the Supreme Court termed Goswami’s allegations of conflict of interest against the Mumbai Police chief ‘unsubstantiated.’ It said;
The Supreme Court also appeared to chide Goswami for not utilising the three weeks of protection from arrest to seek a judicial remedy from the Bombay High Court. The Bench used this argument to justify why Arnab Goswami Goswami’s plea for the quashing of the FIR was untenable. It said;
The Bench of Justice Chandrachud and Shah had faced plenty of criticism last week as felt that Arnab Goswami was unnecessarily being accorded special treatment. However, going by their verdict on Tuesday, it seems they have made considerable efforts in redeeming themselves and restoring people’s faith in the Indian judiciary. ( Janta Ka Reporter )
