After the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, the press is the fourth pillar of democracy. The government cannot function well without free and fair political discourse. It was decided in the Indian Express v. Union of India decision that courts must always protect freedom of the press since the press is crucial to democracies.
Each and every person has the fundamental right to express their opinions on matters of public importance, and journalists play a crucial role in this dynamic system. Political individuals and authorities have frequently utilized state machinery to threaten media freedom, despite the courts’ best efforts to preserve it. This arnab ranjan goswami vs union of india case is noteworthy because renowned journalist Arnab R Goswami received multiple false police reports (FIRs) against him.
arnab ranjan goswami vs union of india Case Facts
- In the village of Gadchinchle, Palghar district, Maharashtra, three people, including two sadhus, were mercilessly lynched and killed by a mob on April 16, 2020, supposedly in front of police officers.
- The case stems from an incident that occurred on April 21, 2020. Arnab Goswami, the editor-in-chief and host of both channels, carried a news story on both Republic TV and R. Bharat.
- Arnab Ranjan Goswami hosted and aired a program called “Poochta Hai Bharat” on the “Palghar incident” on April 21, 2020. Arnab brought up several concerns about the situation. Many criminal complaints against Mr. Arnab were made in response to this broadcast in the states of Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, Jharkhand, and Jammu & Kashmir.
- These are the states’ and union territories’ leaders in Congress. As a petitioner, Arnab was satisfied that there was an intent to abuse enforcement tools for nefarious purposes.
- Arnab Ranjan Goswami so petitions the Supreme Court in an attempt to have several FIRs quashed and to obtain protection.
arnab ranjan goswami vs union of india: Interim Order
- The court said that Mr. Arnab Goswami shall be protected from compulsion for three weeks following the date of the verdict. The Court stopped all the FIRs filed against Mr. Goswami, with the exception of one that was originally filed in Nagpur and is now being transferred to Mumbai.
- Apart from the personal security that was granted to Mr. Goswami, the court directed that in the event that he approaches the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, for sufficient security at his home or the Republic TV studio in Mumbai, the request will be promptly taken into account, and police protection will be given in accordance with the threat assessment, if deemed suitable, and will last until the threat abates.
- In accordance with Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it also granted the petitioner the ability to pursue any further legal remedies and to submit an anticipatory bail plea to the Bombay High Court.
arnab ranjan goswami vs union of india Issues
- Is Mr. Goswami able to request that the appropriate authority look into the matter?
- Is it permissible for the courts to merge many similar FIRs under article 32 of the indian constitution?
- Which set of restrictions, Article 19(2) or article 19 1 a of the indian constitution, apply to Mr. Goswami’s remarks made during the live broadcast?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- According to the petition filed under article 32 of the indian constitution, the purpose of the live television discussion was to examine the inadequate investigation into the Palghar Lynching episode, the divergent views held by the authorities, and the State Government’s lack of response.
- Since the horrific occurrence happened in front of police officers in Maharashtra, concerns have been raised about the government’s authority.
- The attorney denied the assertion that prevailing views within the community were spreading.
- Under article 19 1 a of the indian constitution, it was urged of the court to declare his unqualified freedom of speech and expression.
- It was claimed that the investigation into the matter was unfair and biased since it led to the widespread belief that the petitioner was being taken advantage of by the authorities.
- Additionally, he questioned the Maharashtra police’s delay in responding to the Palghar incident, arguing that the agency’s control by the state government created a clear conflict of interest.
- The main reliefs requested were the dismissal of all the FIRs and complaints that had been made against Mr. Goswami in several states, along with a request for his family’s safety from the Union Government.
Respondent:
- The petitioner’s actions, according to the Mumbai Police, were impeding the inquiry.
- It originated from the fact that Mr. Goswami was traveling to the NM Joshi Marg Police Station with a large group of columnists in tow.
- Republic Bharat’s Twitter account sent a statement stating, “Truth shall triumph,” along with several other live-on-TV comments, following four hours of questioning.
- More remarks that suggested the Mumbai police are biased were posted on Republic Bharat’s Twitter account.
- The probe was said to have stopped because the investigative agency was under constant pressure.
arnab ranjan goswami vs union of india: Personal Analysis
- A point of comparison has been established in situations where it can be shown that the state government is acting maliciously. Seven people were allegedly stolen by a senior police officer holding the rank of deputy superintendent as well as a few other police officers in the Punjab case of Inder Singh v. Province. People who were taken advantage of did not communicate for a long time, and a complaint was filed with the state’s DGP.
- The DGP’s P.A. complained to the IG, which led to an independent request made by the Superintendent of Police. In accordance with section 364 of the IPC, the Superintendent of Police’s office suggested that the disagreement be documented against the authorities. Nevertheless, not a single case was registered.
- Under the careful observation of the Apex Court, a writ appeal was now filed in order to conduct a reasonable and impartial investigation into the incident. Permitting this appeal, the court ordered the CBI to conduct a free investigation.
- Furthermore, the SC has granted similar orders in cases when a police encounter resulted in the deaths of ten people. When the state police concluded their investigation, the CBI was consulted for an unbiased assessment. In this instance, it was argued that the questions asked during the examination had no real impact on the outcome of the case.
arnab ranjan goswami vs union of india Judgment
- The Supreme Court noted that when faced with consecutive FIRs and complaints with the same basis, allowing a journalist to be subjected to repeated complaints and the pursuit of remedies spanning multiple states and jurisdictions has a stifling effect on the exercise of his freedom.
- The court concluded that a journalist’s right under article 19 1 a of the indian constitution is no more valuable than a citizen’s right to free speech and expression.
- However, society must always remember that one cannot exist without the other, and free citizens cannot exist if the news media is forced to support a single viewpoint.
The current case’s facts and circumstances required that it be classified as “an extraordinary case” and that the inquiry be turned over to an independent body. Nonetheless, the Court adopted an extremely strict stance and ignored the basic justification for extraordinary powers. However, it is commendable that the petitioner’s basic right to free speech has been upheld in order to satisfy the petitioner’s obligation under Article 32.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that every person has the choice of appraisal and articulation. The court holds that a columnist cannot disparage rigid ideas, even while he should be allowed to seek for, acquire, and examine hypotheses and realities. The Maneka Gandhi case mandates that any restriction or denial of an individual’s fundamental right be reasonable rather than arbitrary.
The Indian Constitution’s Article 19(1)(a) is checked by Article 19(2). Based on the nation’s sovereignty and integrity, the state’s security, amicable relations with other states, public order, decency or morality, or instances of contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence, it imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of fundamental rights. But remarks uttered in passing without malice should not be punished; only intentional and vicious conduct should.
Frequently Asked Question
- Which coaching is best for Judiciary?
The greatest judiciary coaching services in Jaipur are provided by Jyoti Judiciary Coaching. Providing the students with a comfortable learning atmosphere is the aim. By making the difficult task seem easy, it increases the likelihood of getting the desired outcome. At Jyoti Judiciary, our mission is to give students the best education possible. The Institute pledges to use every resource at its disposal to provide you with the finest preparation for the Judicial Services entrance examinations.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
