Supreme Court Quashes Multiple FIRs Against Arnab Goswami, Upholds Journalistic Freedom Under Article 19(1)(a)

SC restrains multiplicity of FIRs over same cause of action, refuses to transfer Mumbai police probe to CBI, extends interim protection for Arnab Goswami

In a landmark judgment delivered on May 19, 2020, the Supreme Court of India safeguarded journalistic freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution by quashing multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) lodged against Arnab Ranjan Goswami, Editor-in-Chief of Republic TV and R Bharat. The FIRs, filed in various states and Union Territories including Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, Jharkhand, and Jammu & Kashmir, arose from the same broadcast aired on April 21, 2020 on R Bharat concerning a tragic incident in Palghar, Maharashtra.

The Court observed that such multiple FIRs on the same cause of action constitute an abuse of the legal process and infringe upon the fundamental rights of the petitioner as a journalist and citizen. Quashing the majority of FIRs while allowing the investigation in Mumbai to proceed, the Court emphasized the necessity of balancing free speech with the due process of law.

Background:

The controversy stemmed from Arnab Goswami’s news broadcasts on Republic TV and R Bharat, which critically highlighted the police and administrative response to a mob lynching incident in Gadchinchle village, Palghar district, Maharashtra on April 16, 2020. Following these broadcasts, multiple complaints and FIRs were lodged against him under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, alleging offences ranging from promoting enmity between groups (Sections 153, 153A, 153B) to criminal defamation (Section 499) and conspiracy (Section 120B).

Key Issues:

- Whether multiple FIRs filed across different states for the same cause of action can be maintained.

- Whether the ongoing investigation by Mumbai police is impartial or tainted by political interference, necessitating transfer to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

- Whether Arnab Goswami’s right to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) has been unduly curtailed.

- The constitutional validity and applicability of criminal defamation law (Section 499 IPC) in this context.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings:

1. On Multiple FIRs and Legal Precedents:

The Court extensively relied on precedents including TT Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181, Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash (2004) 13 SCC 292, and Babubhai v. State of Gujarat (2010) 12 SCC 254 to hold that multiple FIRs on the same cause of action or incident cannot be entertained, except where a counter-complaint or different incident is involved. The Court held that the registration of numerous FIRs across diverse jurisdictions over the same broadcast was an abuse of the statutory power of investigation and quashed all except the FIR under investigation in Mumbai.

2. On Freedom of Speech and Expression:

The Court underscored that journalistic freedom lies at the heart of the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It acknowledged the petitioner’s role as a media journalist airing views and opinions on news shows as an exercise of this right. The Court warned that subjecting journalists to vexatious multiple complaints would have a chilling effect on free speech and the public’s right to know, which is vital for democracy.

3. On Transfer of Investigation to CBI:

Rejecting the petitioner’s plea to transfer the Mumbai police investigation to the CBI, the Court reiterated that transfer of investigation is an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances such as where high officials are involved or where there is credible evidence of bias or mala fide investigation. The Court found no such exceptional circumstances, especially as the petitioner himself had consented to the transfer of the FIR from Nagpur to Mumbai police. The Court also noted that the petitioner’s allegations against the Mumbai police and authorities were insufficient to warrant transfer.

4. On Investigation Process and Interrogation:

The Court held that the investigating agency has discretion to determine the manner, duration, and nature of interrogation, and courts must refrain from interfering prematurely in ongoing investigations to avoid derailing them. The Court dismissed allegations that the questions posed to the petitioner and the CFO of Republic Media Network were extraneous or malicious.

5. On Criminal Defamation (Section 499 IPC):

The Court clarified that the ongoing investigation does not pertain to criminal defamation under Section 499 IPC, which requires a complaint by the aggrieved party, and no such complaint was filed. The Court therefore declined to address the constitutional challenge to the validity of Section 499 in this case.

6. Interim Protection and Security:

The Court extended interim protection against coercive steps for a further three weeks, considering the COVID-19 pandemic. It also directed the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai to consider the petitioner’s request for police security at his residence and business premises.

7. On Subsequent FIRs:

The Court dismissed the subsequent writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging an FIR lodged in Mumbai on May 2, 2020, related to alleged communal statements made on April 29, 2020. The Court held that the petitioner has an adequate remedy under the law and must pursue it before the competent courts.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s judgment strikes a critical balance between protecting the constitutional right of free speech and expression of journalists and ensuring lawful investigation of offences under the criminal law. By quashing the multiple FIRs filed across states and allowing only a single investigation to proceed, the Court curbed the misuse of the criminal justice system to harass a journalist. At the same time, it reinforced the principle that courts should not interfere lightly in investigations or transfer cases without exceptional justification.

This judgment serves as a reaffirmation of the democratic values of free speech and fair investigation, safeguarding the role of journalism in holding power accountable while respecting the rule of law.

Statutory provisions

Article 19(1)(a), Article 32 of the Constitution of India; Sections 153, 153A, 153B, 295A, 298, 500, 504, 506, 120B, 117, 188, 290, 505, 91, 160, 41(a), 199, 438, 482 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---

This news report summarizes the Supreme Court’s comprehensive judgment on Arnab Goswami’s petitions, reflecting its thorough legal reasoning and the broader constitutional implications for media freedom in India.

Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1716862