New Delhi: The Supreme Court stated Friday, in verbal remarks, that the FIR against members of the Editors’ Guild of India (EGI) was a “counter-narrative” of the Manipur government to the fact-finding report on the ethnic clashes in the state.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud also observed that even if the statements in the EGI’s report were assumed to be false, they did not make for an offence under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), under which the FIR was registered earlier this month.
Section 153A penalises the action of promoting hatred and enmity between different groups.
The top court was hearing a petition filed by the EGI members, who requested the case against them be quashed and sought protection from any coercive action by the Manipur Police.
Extending the interim protection granted to the EGI office-bearers named in the FIR, the bench asked the Manipur government to file its response to the petition.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta objected to the top court entertaining the petition, and suggested that the petitioners should approach the Manipur High Court for relief.
Senior advocate Guru Krishnakumar, appearing for the complainant who had lodged the FIR against the EGI members, too protested. He said his client would not press his complaint if the EGI withdrew its report, which was published on 2 September.
He also alleged that the EGI’s report was aggravating the problem in Manipur and claimed that curfew had been reinforced following its publication.
Members of the EGI named in the FIR are president Seema Mustafa, and senior journalists Seema Guha, Bharat Bhushan and Sanjay Kapoor. The latter three had visited Manipur between 7 and 10 August to study media reporting on the ethnic clashes between the Kukis and the Meiteis.
In their report, the team said they found that the “leadership of the state” had become “partisan during the conflict”.
Subsequently, Imphal-based social worker N. Sarat Singh filed an FIR against the four EGI members, accusing them of trying to “provoke clashes” in Manipur. A second FIR against the four had the additional charge of defamation.
Also Read: Manipur conflict: Mary Kom writes to Amit Shah, urges him to protect her community
Arguments in court
Senior advocate Shyam Divan, the EGI’s counsel, argued in court that the Guild’s web link had published counter views to the report.
When the top court asked Krishnakumar to upload his client’s view on the EGI’s website, the senior counsel responded by saying that “the damage already done could not be undone now”.
This prompted the bench to question Krishnakumar about how the contents of the report attracted the penal provisions mentioned in the FIR.
“What is happening? They (EGI members) are entitled to put forth a viewpoint. Where do you get this? 153A? Let us see each section,” the CJI said.
“You have to look at the complaint as it stands. Forget the response. You have to establish the ingredients of the offences that are being made out in the complaint,” he said, when Krishnakumar stated that his client would file a response to the EGI members’ petition.
Krishnakumar told the bench that an FIR could not be treated as an encyclopaedia and that an investigation had to take place.
But the CJI sought to differentiate the EGI’s case from the other cases, saying that the complaint was the Manipur government’s counter-narrative.
“You have basically put forth a counter-narrative assuming that what they (EGI members) have said is false. Making a false statement is not an offence under Section 153A. Incorrect things are reported across the country every day. Will you prosecute journalists for 153A?” the CJI asked.
The top court further pointed out that the EGI members had gone to Manipur on the invitation of the Army, which had complained to the Guild about partisan media reporting in the state. It was the Army which asked the Guild to make a report, it said.
“They (EGI) may be right or wrong, but that is what free speech is all about,” the CJI told the Solicitor General when he urged the court not to determine the merits of the case.
Mehta urged the top court to only consider the EGI members’ prayer that the case against them be transferred for hearing from Manipur to Delhi. He also pleaded to the bench to refrain from making comments on the case, considering the sensitivity of the situation.
Mehta suggested the court to clarify in its order that a transfer to Delhi would not reflect on the Manipur High Court’s functioning.
The SC, however, voiced its discontent over the manner in which the Manipur High Court had entertained a PIL — filed by International Meeteis Forum — seeking to quash the EGI fact-finding report.
“The manner in which that PIL is entertained by the Chief Justice of the HC. Let me not say much more as the head of the family. But surely there are more pressing matters to be entertained than these kinds of PILs,” the bench said.
During his submissions, Mehta sought to dispel the notion that the Manipur High Court was not functioning, a picture that has been painted by many petitioners who moved court on the issue of Manipur violence.
Citing numbers to support his submission, Mehta contended that in the past 15 days, a total of 2,673 cases was listed for hearing before the high court, while 572 virtual hearings were recorded in the previous month.
During these online hearings, 45 non-locals logged in. Senior counsels Anand Grover and Colin Gonsalves too appeared during these online hearings, Mehta said.
Grover and Gonsalves have maintained that it is becoming increasingly difficult to appear in the Manipur High Court due to the extremely polarised situation in the state.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)