SC gives Arnab Goswami three weeks’ protection from arrest, stays all FIRs except one
New Delhi (The Print): 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.
