SC gives Arnab Goswami three weeks’ protection from arrest, stays all FIRs except one

Republic TV editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami had moved the Supreme Court challenging the FIRs filed against him across India accusing him of making inflammatory statements and defaming Sonia Gandhi.

The Supreme Court in New Delhi | Manisha Mondal | ThePrint

New Delhi: The Supreme Court Friday provided protection from arrest for three weeks to Republic TV editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami, who had approached the top court challenging the multiple FIRs filed against him across the country that accused him of making “inflammatory statements” and defaming Sonia Gandhi.

The bench comprising Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice M.R. Shah clarified that all allegations against Goswami will be investigated through one FIR in Mumbai.

The senior journalist will have to file an anticipatory bail plea within three weeks for continued protection from arrest.

Multiple FIRs were filed against Goswami in several states, including Maharashtra, Jharkhand, Telangana, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh, accusing him of using derogatory language against Sonia Gandhi and making “inflammatory statements” during discussions on the Palghar incident, in which three persons including two sadhus were lynched, on his channel.

The court stayed all FIRs against him, except for one in Nagpur, which will be transferred to Mumbai. Any FIR filed against him, “which arose out of a similar cause of action”, after this will also remain stayed until further orders.

The top court also asked the Mumbai Commissioner of Police to give protection to Goswami and his Republic TV office.

The court issued notice to all the states where the FIRs were lodged, and directed Goswami to amend his petition suitably, so he can seek clubbing of all FIRs against him.

‘Idea behind FIRs is to muzzle the press’

Arguing for Goswami, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi referred to the FIRs filed against him for defaming Sonia Gandhi and said the idea behind these is to “muzzle the press”.

Rohatgi also referred to a 2016 Supreme Court judgment in a case involving BJP leader Subramanian Swamy to submit that a defamation complaint can only be filed by the person who was defamed.

Rohatgi contended that Goswami only wanted to highlight that sadhus were being lynched in the presence of policemen, and question the Congress’ silence on the issue.

‘Is Arnab Goswami a special privileged person?’

Even though any notice hadn’t been issued yet, senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Vivek Tankha and Manish Singhvi appeared for the Congress-ruled states during the hearing Friday.

Appearing for the Maharashtra government, Sibal began his arguments referring to statements made by Goswami during his show. He asserted that Goswami was “creating communal violence” by such statements and by pitting Hindus against the minority.

Sibal also questioned the filing of the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, submitting that an FIR cannot be quashed at this stage and that investigation should be allowed.

He asked if Rahul Gandhi can appear in a defamation case, why can’t Goswami.
“Is Arnab Goswami a special privileged person?… If Congress people have filed FIRs then what is the problem with this? Don’t BJP people file FIRs?”

Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Vivek Tankha, appearing for Chhattisgarh, contended that this was a case of “misuse of broadcasting licence”. He asserted that Goswami was disrupting communal harmony, vitiating the atmosphere during the lockdown and instigating enmity.

Tankha also protested against the grant of protection to Goswami, submitting that it is “people like him who should be stopped from saying things to protect the integrity of the country”.

While Tankha demanded that Goswami be restrained from making such statements, Justice Chandrachud expressed his disinclination towards placing curbs on the media.

What Arnab Goswami said in his petition

Goswami’s plea in the Supreme Court demanded that all these complaints or FIRs be quashed, claiming these violate his fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty).

Goswami pointed out that the FIRs registered against him are in states ruled by the Congress government or its alliances.

He also claimed that these complaints are part of a “well-coordinated and malicious campaign by the Congress and its members” and asserted, “The Complaints and the FIRs are false, vindictive, frivolous, malicious, precipitated with malice, untenable in law and have been filed with mala-fide intent by the Congress activists to coerce, harass and intimidate the Petitioner in order to muzzle the media and in particular the Petitioner, from carrying these news reports and conducting investigative journalism to bring the truth before the public.”

Goswami rubbished claims of his show disturbing communal harmony, saying he has “time and again encouraged and used the platform of its channel to foster communal harmony, especially in the present critical time of the COVID-19 pandemic”.

He went on to accuse the Congress party of harbouring “ill-well, hatred and personal vendetta” against him.

Goswam’s petition also alleged that his car was attacked in Mumbai on 23 April by two goons on a motorcycle, “who when confronted by Petitioner’s security officials, claimed to be Congress members”. He said when he tried to register an FIR against these men, the police “refused to cooperate and diluted the allegations in the FIR, indicating pressure from the State Government”.

Goswami sought a direction to the central government to provide “adequate safety and security” to him, his family members and his colleagues at Republic TV at various locations in the country.