# ARNAB RANJAN GOSWAMI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2020] 8 S.C.R. 222
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2020-05-19
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, M. R. Shah
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/arnab-ranjan-goswami-v-union-of-india-and-ors-34849
- **Pages:** 50

## Headnote

Constitution of India:
Arts. 19(1)(a), 19(2) and 32 - Writ Petition - Seeking quashing
of various FIRs filed under the provisions of ss. 153, 153A, 153B,
295A, 298, 500, 504 and 506 IPC against a media journalist -
Held: All the FIRs or complaints have been lodged in diverse
jurisdictions arising out of same cause of action i.e. broadcast of a
programme - Journalistic freedom is protected by Art. 19(1)(a) -
The right of speech and expression of a journalist u/Art. 19(1)(a) is
no higher than such right of a citizen - It is amenable to restriction
u/Art. 19(2) - Petitioner is not immune from investigation in FIR -
However, the reasonable restriction on fundamental right must
comport with the proportionality standard i.e. the measure adopted
must be the least restrictive to effectively achieve the legitimate aim
- Subjecting an individual to numerous proceedings in different
jurisdictions on the basis of same cause of action cannot be said to
be least restrictive - Therefore, except one FIR at Mumbai, all other
FIRs which are in respect of the same incident are quashed as they
constitute a clear abuse of process of law - The writ petition is not
entertained in respect of relief of quashing the FIR at Mumbai as
efficacious remedies are available under Cr. P.C. including the
remedy before High Court u/s. 482 Cr. P.C.
Investigation:
Transfer of investigation - From local police to CBI - Held:
Transfer of investigation to CBI is not a matter of routine - It is an
'extraordinary power' to be used 'sparingly' and 'in exceptional
circumstances' - Mere allegations against police do not constitute
a sufficient basis for transfer - It must be 'imperative' to retain
public confidence in the impartial working of the State agencies -
Allegation by the person under investigation regarding mode,
[2020] 8 S.C.R. 222
222
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
223
manner and line of interrogation and unsubstantiated allegation of
a conflict of interest against police conducting investigation, cannot
be the basis to transfer the investigation.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 199 - Prosecution for defamation - Held: In respect of
defamation neither can an FIR be filed nor can a direction be issued
u/s. 156 (3) Cr. P.C. - It is only a complaint which can be instituted
by the aggrieved person.
Disposing of Writ Petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The fundamental basis on which the
jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 32 is
the filing of multiple FIRs and complaints in various States arising
from the same cause of action. All the FIRs or complaints which
have been lodged in diverse jurisdictions arise out of one and
the same incident - the broadcast by the petitioner on 21 April
2020 on R Bharat. The broadcast is the foundation of the
allegation that offences have been committed under the provisions
of Sections 153, 153A, 153B, 295A, 298, 500, 504 and 506 of the
IPC. The several complaints are worded in identical terms and
leave no manner of doubt that an identity of cause of action
underlies the allegations leveled against the petitioner on the
basis of the programme which was broadcast on 21 April 2020.
Moreover, the language, content and sequencing of paragraphs
and their numbering is identical. [Paras 28 and 31][252-C; 256A-C]
1.2 Article 32 of the Constitution constitutes a recognition
of the constitutional duty entrusted to this Court to protect the
fundamental rights of citizens. The exercise of journalistic freedom
lies at the core of speech and expression protected by Article
19(1)(a). The petitioner is a media journalist. The airing of views
on television shows which he hosts is in the exercise of his
fundamental right to speech and expression under Article
19(1)(a). Country's freedoms will rest safe as long as journalists
can speak to power without being chilled by a threat of reprisal.
The exercise of that fundamental right is not absolute and is
answerable to the legal regime enacted with reference to the
ARNAB RANJAN GOSWAMI v. UNION OF I

## Text

_Characters 0–39,034 of 107,585. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39034 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
222
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 8 S.C.R.
ARNAB RANJAN GOSWAMI
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 130 of 2020)
MAY 19, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Constitution of India:
Arts. 19(1)(a), 19(2) and 32 - Writ Petition - Seeking quashing
of various FIRs filed under the provisions of ss. 153, 153A, 153B,
295A, 298, 500, 504 and 506 IPC against a media journalist -
Held: All the FIRs or complaints have been lodged in diverse
jurisdictions arising out of same cause of action i.e. broadcast of a
programme - Journalistic freedom is protected by Art. 19(1)(a) -
The right of speech and expression of a journalist u/Art. 19(1)(a) is
no higher than such right of a citizen - It is amenable to restriction
u/Art. 19(2) - Petitioner is not immune from investigation in FIR -
However, the reasonable restriction on fundamental right must
comport with the proportionality standard i.e. the measure adopted
must be the least restrictive to effectively achieve the legitimate aim
- Subjecting an individual to numerous proceedings in different
jurisdictions on the basis of same cause of action cannot be said to
be least restrictive - Therefore, except one FIR at Mumbai, all other
FIRs which are in respect of the same incident are quashed as they
constitute a clear abuse of process of law - The writ petition is not
entertained in respect of relief of quashing the FIR at Mumbai as
efficacious remedies are available under Cr. P.C. including the
remedy before High Court u/s. 482 Cr. P.C.
Investigation:
Transfer of investigation - From local police to CBI - Held:
Transfer of investigation to CBI is not a matter of routine - It is an
'extraordinary power' to be used 'sparingly' and 'in exceptional
circumstances' - Mere allegations against police do not constitute
a sufficient basis for transfer - It must be 'imperative' to retain
public confidence in the impartial working of the State agencies -
Allegation by the person under investigation regarding mode,
[2020] 8 S.C.R. 222
222
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
223
manner and line of interrogation and unsubstantiated allegation of
a conflict of interest against police conducting investigation, cannot
be the basis to transfer the investigation.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 199 - Prosecution for defamation - Held: In respect of
defamation neither can an FIR be filed nor can a direction be issued
u/s. 156 (3) Cr. P.C. - It is only a complaint which can be instituted
by the aggrieved person.
Disposing of Writ Petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The fundamental basis on which the
jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 32 is
the filing of multiple FIRs and complaints in various States arising
from the same cause of action. All the FIRs or complaints which
have been lodged in diverse jurisdictions arise out of one and
the same incident - the broadcast by the petitioner on 21 April
2020 on R Bharat. The broadcast is the foundation of the
allegation that offences have been committed under the provisions
of Sections 153, 153A, 153B, 295A, 298, 500, 504 and 506 of the
IPC. The several complaints are worded in identical terms and
leave no manner of doubt that an identity of cause of action
underlies the allegations leveled against the petitioner on the
basis of the programme which was broadcast on 21 April 2020.
Moreover, the language, content and sequencing of paragraphs
and their numbering is identical. [Paras 28 and 31][252-C; 256A-C]
1.2 Article 32 of the Constitution constitutes a recognition
of the constitutional duty entrusted to this Court to protect the
fundamental rights of citizens. The exercise of journalistic freedom
lies at the core of speech and expression protected by Article
19(1)(a). The petitioner is a media journalist. The airing of views
on television shows which he hosts is in the exercise of his
fundamental right to speech and expression under Article
19(1)(a). Country's freedoms will rest safe as long as journalists
can speak to power without being chilled by a threat of reprisal.
The exercise of that fundamental right is not absolute and is
answerable to the legal regime enacted with reference to the
ARNAB RANJAN GOSWAMI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
224
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 8 S.C.R.
provisions of Article 19(2). But to allow a journalist to be subjected
to multiple complaints and to the pursuit of remedies traversing
multiple States and jurisdictions when faced with successive FIRs
and complaints bearing the same foundation has a stifling effect
on the exercise of that freedom. This will effectively destroy the
freedom of the citizen to know of the affairs of governance in the
nation and the right of the journalist to ensure an informed society.
The right of a journalist under Article 19(1)(a) is no higher than
the right of the citizen to speak and express. But as a society one
must never forget that one cannot exist without the other. Free
citizens cannot exist when the news media is chained to adhere
to one position. [Para 32][256-E-G; 257-A]
1.3 It is firmly established that any reasonable restriction
on fundamental rights must comport with the proportionality
standard, of which one component is that the measure adopted
must be the least restrictive measure to effectively achieve the
legitimate state aim. Subjecting an individual to numerous
proceedings arising in different jurisdictions on the basis of the
same cause of action cannot be accepted as the least restrictive
and effective method of achieving the legitimate state aim in
prosecuting crime. The manner in which the petitioner has been
subjected to numerous FIRs in several States, besides the Union
Territories of Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of identical
allegations arising out of the same television show would leave
no manner of doubt that the intervention of this Court is necessary
to protect the rights of the petitioner as a citizen and as a journalist
to fair treatment (guaranteed by Article 14) and the liberty to
conduct an independent portrayal of views. In such a situation, to
require the petitioner to approach the respective High Courts
having jurisdiction for quashing would result into a multiplicity of
proceedings and unnecessary harassment to the petitioner, who
is a journalist. [Para 33][257-B-E]
1.4 However, the petitioner, in the exercise of his right
under Article 19(1)(a), is not immune from an investigation into
the FIR which has been transferred from Police Station Sadar,
District Nagpur City to NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai.
This balance has to be drawn between the exercise of a
fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and the investigation
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
225
for an offence under the CrPC. All other FIRs in respect of the
same incident constitute a clear abuse of process and must be
quashed. Leaving open, however, the investigation in respect of
the FIR 238 of 2020 dated 22 April 2020 transferred from the
Police Station Sadar, District Nagpur City to NM Joshi Marg
Police Station in Mumbai. [Paras 31 and 34][256-D; 257-F-H]
TT Antony v State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181 : [2001]
3 SCR 942; Upkar Singh v Ved Prakash (2004) 13 SCC
292; Ram Lal Narang v State (Delhi Administration)
(1979) 2 SCC 322 : [1979] 2 SCR 923; Kari Choudhary
v Mst. Sita Devi (2002) 1 SCC 714 : [2001] 5 Suppl.
SCR 588; State of Bihar v JAC Saldanha (1980) 1 SCC
554 : [1980] 2 SCR 16; Babubhai v State of Gujarat
(2010) 12 SCC 254 : [2010] 10 SCR 651 - relied on.
Chirra Shivraj v State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) 14
SCC 444 : [2010] 15 SCR 673; Chirag M Pathak v
Dollyben Kantilal Patel (2018) 1 SCC 330 : [2017] 14
SCR 424 - referred to.
2. Section 199 of the CrPC stipulates prosecution for
defamation. In case of criminal defamation, neither can an FIR
be filed nor can a direction be issued under Section 156 (3) of the
CrPC and it is only a complaint which can be instituted by a person
aggrieved. Therefore, the FIR which is under investigation at
the NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai does not and cannot
cover any alleged act of criminal defamation. [Paras 45, 46
and 47][206-E; 264-E; 265-D-E]
3.1 It would be inappropriate for the court to exercise its
jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution for the purpose
of quashing FIR 164 of 2020 under investigation at the NM Joshi
Marg Police Station in Mumbai. The checks and balances to
ensure the protection of the petitioner's liberty are governed by
the CrPC. Despite the liberty being granted by this Court to the
petitioner on 24 April 2020 by its interim order, it is an admitted
position that the petitioner did not pursue available remedies in
the law, but sought instead to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.
Whether the allegations contained in the FIR do or do not make
ARNAB RANJAN GOSWAMI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
226
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 8 S.C.R.
out any offence as alleged will not be decided in pursuance of the
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32, to quash the FIR. The
petitioner must be relegated to the pursuit of the remedies
available under the CrPC. The petitioner has an equally
efficacious remedy available before the High Court. [Para 49][266G-H; 267-A-B]
3.2 It should not be construed that a petition under Article
32 is not maintainable. But when the High Court has the power
under Section 482, there is no reason to by-pass the procedure
under the CrPC and there is no exceptional grounds or reasons
to entertain the petition under Article 32. There is a clear
distinction between the maintainability of a petition and whether
it should be entertained. In a situation like that in the present
case, this Court would not like to entertain the petition under
Article 32 for the relief of quashing the FIR being investigated at
the NM Joshi Police Station in Mumbai which can be considered
by the High Court. Therefore, the petitioner must be relegated
to avail of the remedies which are available under the CrPC before
the competent court including the High Court. [Para 49][267-CD]
4.1 The transfer of an investigation to the CBI is not a
matter of routine. This is an "extraordinary power" to be used
"sparingly" and "in exceptional circumstances". One factor that
courts may consider is that such transfer is "imperative" to retain
"public confidence in the impartial working of the State agencies."
However, mere allegations against the police do not constitute a
sufficient basis to transfer the investigation. The accused "does
not have a say in the matter of appointment of investigating
agency".[Paras 36 and 37][258-D; 259-G; 260-A-B]
State of West Bengal v Committee for Protection of
Democratic Rights, West Bengal (2010) 3 SCC 571 :
[2010] 2 SCR 979 - followed.
K V Rajendran v Superintendent of Police, CBCID South
Zone, Chennai (2013) 12 SCC 480 : [2013] 9 SCR
199; Romila Thapar v Union of India (2018) 10 SCC
753 : [2018] 11 SCR 951; Narmada Bai v State of
Gujarat (2011) 5 SCC 79 : [2011] 5 SCR 729; Sanjiv
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
227
Rajendra Bhatt v Union of India (2016) 1 SCC 1 :
[2015] 12 SCR 498; E Sivakumar v Union of India
(2018) 7 SCC 365 : [2018] 6 SCR 522; Divine Retreat
Centre v State of Kerala (2008) 3 SCC 542 : [2008] 4
SCR 701 - relied on.
4.2 The petitioner had requested for and consented to the
transfer of the investigation of the FIR from the Police Station
Sadar, District Nagpur City to the NM Joshi Marg Police Station
in Mumbai. He did so because an earlier FIR lodged by him at
that police station was under investigation. The petitioner now
seeks to pre-empt an investigation by the Mumbai police. The
basis on which the petitioner seeks to achieve this is untenable.
An accused person does not have a choice in regard to the mode
or manner in which the investigation should be carried out or in
regard to the investigating agency. The line of interrogation either
of the petitioner or of the CFO cannot be controlled or dictated
by the persons under investigation/interrogation. So long as the
investigation does not violate any provision of law, the
investigation agency is vested with the discretion in directing
the course of investigation, which includes determining the nature
of the questions and the manner of interrogation. The
investigating agency is entitled to decide "the venue, the timings
and the questions and the manner of putting such questions"
during the course of the investigation. Courts must refrain from
passing comments on an ongoing investigation to extend to the
investigating agencies the requisite liberty and protection in
conducting a fair, transparent and just investigation. The length
of the investigation or the nature of the questions addressed to
the petitioner and the CFO during the interrogation cannot weigh
in transferring the investigation. The investigating agency is
entitled to determine the nature of the questions and the period
of questioning. The Petitioner was summoned for investigation
on one day. [Paras 39, 40 and 41][261-B-D; 261-G-H; 262-A-B;
262-E-F]
P. Chidambaram v Directorate of Enforcement (2019)
9 SCC 24 : [2019] 12 SCR 172; State of Bihar v P P
Sharma (1992) Suppl. 1 SCC 222 : [1991] 2 SCR 1;
Dukhishyam Benupani, Asst. Director, Enforcement
ARNAB RANJAN GOSWAMI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
228
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 8 S.C.R.
Directorate (FERA) v Arun Kumar Bajoria (1998) 1 SCC
52 : [1997] 5 Suppl. SCR 566; Director, Central Bureau
of Investigation v Niyamavedi represented by its Member
K Nandini, Advocate (1995) 3 SCC 601 : [1995] 3 SCR
196 - relied on.
4.3 The allegation of the Petitioner that there is a conflict
of interest arising out of the criticism by him of the alleged failure
of the State Government to adequately probe the incident at
Palghar is not valid. The investigation of the Palghar incident is
beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Mumbai police. The
petitioner was interrogated on 27 April 2020. The allegations
which he leveled against the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai
were in the course of a television programme on 28 April 2020
relayed on R Bharat at 1900 hrs. No transfer of investigation can
be ordered "merely because a party has levelled some allegations
against the local police." Accordingly, leveling such allegations
would not by itself constitute a sufficient ground for the transfer
of the investigation. [Paras 41 and 42][262-G; 263-A-C]
4.4 The interview given by the complainant to a
representative of R Bharat does not furnish a valid basis in law
for an inference that the investigation is tainted or as warranting
a transfer of investigation to the CBI. The Government of
Maharashtra has moved an application before this Court (affirmed
by the DCP, Zone-3) seeking appropriate directions to insulate
the investigating agency "from any pressure, threat or coercion
from the petitioner" and to enable it to discharge its lawful duties
in a fair and transparent manner. Based on the views tweeted by
R Bharat on social media, it is the Maharashtra police which is
now claiming a restraining order against the petitioner. The
investigating agency has placed on the record what it believes is
an attempt by the petitioner to discredit the investigation by
taking recourse to the social media and by utilizing the news
channels which he operates. Social media has become an
overarching presence in society. To accept the tweets by the
petitioner and the interview by the complainant as a justification
to displace a lawfully constituted investigation agency of its
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
229
jurisdiction and duty to investigate would have far-reaching
consequences for the federal structure. [Para 43][263-C-G]
4.5 There is no reason that warrants a transfer of the
investigation to the CBI. An individual under investigation has a
legitimate expectation of a fair process which accords with law.
The displeasure of an accused person about the manner in which
the investigation proceeds or an unsubstantiated allegation (as
in the present case) of a conflict of interest against the police
conducting the investigation must not derail the legitimate course
of law and warrant the invocation of the extraordinary power of
this Court to transfer an investigation to the CBI. Courts assume
the extraordinary jurisdiction to transfer an investigation in
exceptional situations to ensure that the sanctity of the
administration of criminal justice is preserved. While no inflexible
guidelines are laid down, the notion that such a transfer is an
"extraordinary power" to be used "sparingly" and "in exceptional
circumstances" comports with the idea that routine transfers
would belie not just public confidence in the normal course of law
but also render meaningless the extraordinary situations that
warrant the exercise of the power to transfer the investigation.
Having balanced and considered the material on record as well
as the averments of and submissions urged by the petitioner, no
case of the nature which falls within the ambit of the tests
enunciated in the precedents of this Court has been established
for the transfer of the investigation. [Para 44][263-G-H; 264-AD]
Subramanian Swamy v Union of India, Ministry of Law
(2016) 7 SCC 221 : [2016] 3 SCR 865 - relied on.
5. There is no reason to entertain the subsequent Writ
Petition which has been filed by the petitioner in respect of the
FIR lodged at Pydhonie Police Station (FIR 137 of 2020 dated 2
May 2020). The basis on which the jurisdiction of this Court was
invoked in the first Writ Petition - the filing of multiple FIRs in
various states - is absent in the subsequent Writ Petition (Crl.)
Diary No 11189 of 2020. The petitioner would be at liberty to
pursue his remedies under the law in respect of the FIR. Any
ARNAB RANJAN GOSWAMI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
230
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 8 S.C.R.
recourse to such a remedy shall be considered on its own merits
by the competent court. [Para 52][268-B-D]
Case Law Reference
[2001] 3 SCR 942
relied on
Para 28
(2004) 13 SCC 292
relied on
Para 29
[1979] 2 SCR 923
relied on
Para 29
[2001] 5 Suppl. SCR 588
relied on
Para 29
[1980] 2 SCR 16
relied on
Para 29
[2010] 10 SCR 651
relied on
Para 30
[2010] 15 SCR 673
referred to
Para 30
[2017] 14 SCR 424
referred to
Para 30
[2010] 2 SCR 979
followed
Para 36
[2013] 9 SCR 199
relied on
Para 36
[2018] 11 SCR 951
relied on
Para 37
[2011] 5 SCR 729
relied on
Para 37
[2015] 12 SCR 498
relied on
Para 37
[2018] 6 SCR 522
relied on
Para 37
[2008] 4 SCR 701
relied on
Para 37
[2019] 12 SCR 172
relied on
Para 39
[1991] 2 SCR 1
relied on
Para 39
[1997] 5 Suppl. SCR 566
relied on
Para 39
[1995] 3 SCR 196
relied on
Para 40
[2016] 3 SCR 865
relied on
Para 46
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition
(Criminal) No. 130 of 2020.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
With
W.P. (Crl.) Diary No. 11189 of 2020.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
231
Tushar Mehta, SG, S.C. Verma, Adv. Gen., Manoj Kumar Singh,
Ashok Basoya, AAGs, Harish Salve, Siddharth Bhatnagar, Kapil Sibal,
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Dr. Manish Singhvi, K.V. Vishwanathan,
Sr. Advs., Saket Shukla, Mrinal Ojha, Ms. Malvika Trivedi, Vasanth
Rajasekaran, Debarshi Dutta, Rajat Pradhan, Ishaan Chhaya, Harshul
Singh, Ms. Reshma Ravipati, Ms. Pragya Baghel, Rahul Chitnis, Sachin
Patil, Varun K. Chopra, Adit Pujari, Sumeer Sodhi, Ashok Basoya, Varun
Tankha, Varun Chopra, Aman Nandrajog, Sandeep Jha, Sumeer Sodhi,
S. Hariharan, Ms. Jaikriti Sinh Jadeja, Reepak Kansal, Harisha S.R.,
Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
Writ Petition (Crl) No 130 of 2020
1. The petitioner is the Editor-in-Chief of an English television
news channel, Republic TV. He is also the Managing Director of ARG
Outlier Media Asianet News Private Limited which owns and operates
a Hindi television news channel by the name of R Bharat. The petitioner
anchors news shows on both channels.
2. On 16 April 2020, a broadcast took place on Republic TV. This
was followed by a broadcast on R Bharat on 21 April 2020. These
broadcasts led to the lodging of multiple First Information Reports1 and
criminal complaints against the petitioner. They have been lodged in the
States of Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh,
Telangana and Jharkhand as well as in the Union Territories of Jammu
and Kashmir. In the State of Maharashtra, an FIR was lodged at Police
Station Sadar, District Nagpur City. The details of this FIR are:
"Maharashtra
FIR No. 238 of 2020, dated 22 April 2020, registered at Police
Station Sadar, District Nagpur City, Maharashtra, under Sections
153, 153-A, 153-B,295-A, 298, 500, 504(2), 506, 120-B and 117
of the Indian Penal Code 1860."
Apart from the above FIR, as many as fourteen other FIRs and
complaints have been lodged against the petitioner, of which the details
are extracted below:
1 "FIRs"
ARNAB RANJAN GOSWAMI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
232
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 8 S.C.R.
"• FIR No. 245 of 2020, dated 22 April 2020, registered at Police
Station Supela, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, under sections 153A, 295-A and 505 (2) of the Indian Penal Code 1860.
• FIR No. 180 of 2020, dated 23 April 2020, registered at Police
Station Bhilal Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, under sections
153- A, 188, 290 and 505 (1) of the Indian Penal Code 1860.
• FIR No. 176 of 2020, dated 22 April 2020, registered at Police
Station Civil Lines, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, under sections
153-A, 295-A and 505 (2) of the Indian Penal Code 1860.
• Complaint dated 21 April 2020 by District Congress Committee
- Antagrah, Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
• Complaint dated 22 April 2020 by Pritam Deshmukh (adv.), Durg
District Congress Committee - to SHO city PS Durg,
Chhattisgarh.
• Complaint dated 22 April 2020 by Suraj Singh Thakur, State
Vice President, Indian Youth Congress- to Sr. Police Officer, Chirag
Nagar, Ghatkopar East, Mumbai.
• Complaint dated 22 April 2020 - Pankaj Prajapti (party worker
of INC and ex-spokesperson NSUI) through counsel Anshuman
Shrivastavas - Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Indore,
Madhya Pradesh.
• Complaint dated 22 April 2020 - Balram Jakhad (adv.) - to PS
Shyam Nagar -u/s 153, 188, 505, 120B in Jaipur.
• Complaint by Jaswant Gujar - to SHO Bajaj Nagar PS, Jaipur.
• Complaint dated 22 April 2020 by Fundurdihari, Ambikapur,
District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh - Rajesh Dubey, Chhattisgarh State
Congress Committee - to SHO Gandhi Nagar, Ambikapur - u/s
153, 153A, 153B, 504, 505.
• Complaint dated 22 April 2020 in Telangana by Anil Kumar Yadav,
State President of Telangana Youth Congress - to SHO Hussaini
Alam - u/s 117, 120B, 153, 153A, 295A, 298, 500, 504, 505 and
506. Also 66A of the IT Act.
• Complaint dated 23 April 2020 by Anuj Mishra before Kotwali,
Urai, Tulsi Nagar.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
233
• Complaint dated 22 April 2020 by Kumar Raja, VP, Youth
Congress, Jharkhand Congress Committee before Kotwali Police
Station, Upper Bazar, Ranchi.
• Complaint dated 22 April 2020 by Madhya Pradesh Youth
Congress."
3. The genesis of the FIRs and complaints originates in the
broadcasts on Republic TV on 16 April 2020 and R Bharat on 21 April
2020 in relation to an incident which took place in Gadchinchle village of
Palghar district in Maharashtra. During the course of the incident which
took place on 16 April 2020, three persons including two sadhus were
brutally killed by a mob, allegedly in the presence of the police and forest
guard personnel. The incident was widely reported in the print and
electronic media. The petition states that a video recording of the incident
is available in the public domain. In his news show titled "Poochta hai
Bharat" on 21 April 2020 on R Bharat, the petitioner claims to have
raised issues in relation to the allegedly tardy investigation of the incident.
The segment of the news broadcast is available for public viewing online
at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2i4MMpKu9I
4. The viewpoint which the petitioner claims to have put across
during the course of the broadcast, is described in the following extract
from the Writ Petition which has been instituted by the petitioner before
this Court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution:
"A review of the above debate would show that its thrust was to
question the tardy investigation, inconsistent versions of the
authorities and the administration and the State Government's
silence on the Palghar incident given that the unfortunate incident
happened in Maharashtra which is presently under rule of an
alliance government jointly formed by Shiv Sena, the Congress
and the Nationalist Congress Party. The debate highlighted the
manner in which the incident was being portrayed by the authorities,
including the glaring fact that the incident occurred in the presence
of numerous police officials which fact was initially suppressed."
5. The petitioner claims that following the broadcast, "a wellcoordinated, widespread, vindictive and malicious campaign" was
launched against him by the Indian National Congress2 and its activists.
2 "INC"
ARNAB RANJAN GOSWAMI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
234
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 8 S.C.R.
The campaign, he alleges, was carried out online through news reports
and tweets indicating that members of the INC had filed multiple
complaints simultaneously against the petitioner before various police
stations seeking the registration of FIRs and an investigation into offences
alleged to have been committed by him under Sections 153, 153A, 153B
295A, 298, 500, 504, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code 18603. A
campaign for the arrest of the petitioner was allegedly launched on social
media, using the hashtag:
#ArrestAntiIndiaArnab
6. The petitioner submitted, in the course of his pleadings, that all
the complaints and FIRs have incidentally been lodged in States where
the governments which were formed owe allegiance to the INC and
that he believes that the law enforcement machinery was being set in
motion with an ulterior motive. To substantiate this, the petitioner refers
to an incident which allegedly took place on 23 April 2020, while he was
returning by car from his studio at Worli, Mumbai accompanied by his
spouse between 12:30 and 1:00 am. His car was confronted by two
individuals on a motor-cycle. Confronted by the security personnel of
the petitioner, the two individuals on the motor-cycle are alleged to have
disclosed their identity as members of the INC. An FIR was registered
at the behest of the petitioner at NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai
in which the details of the alleged attack on him have been set out.
7. The petitioner denies that he has propagated views of a
communal nature in the course of the news broadcasts which gave rise
to the institution of numerous complaints. Asserting his fundamental right
to the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution, the petitioner has moved this Court under Article 32 for the
protection of those rights. The reliefs which have been sought are:
(i)
Quashing all the complaints and FIRs lodged against the
petitioner in multiple States and Union Territories;
(ii)
A writ direction that no cognisance should be taken of any
complaint or FIR on the basis of the cause of action which
forms the basis of the complaints and FIRs which have led
to the present writ proceedings; and
3 "IPC"
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
235
(iii) A direction to the Union Government to provide adequate
safety and security to the petitioner and his family as well as
to his colleagues at Republic TV and R Bharat.
8. While entertaining the Writ Petition on 24 April 2020, this Court
heard submissions by Senior Counsel: on behalf of the petitioner by
Mr Mukul Rohatgi and Mr Siddhartha Bhatnagar; on behalf of the State
of Maharashtra by Mr Kapil Sibal; on behalf of the State of Chhattisgarh
by Mr Vivek Tankha; and on behalf of the State of Rajasthan by
Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi. Having heard the rival submissions, this
Court noted in its interim order that the order which it intended to pass
should strike a balance between the following governing principles:
(i)
The need to ensure that the criminal process does not assume
the character of a vexatious exercise by the institution of
multifarious complaints founded on the same cause in
multiple States;
(ii)
The need for the law to protect journalistic freedom within
the ambit of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution;
(iii)
The requirement that recourse be taken to the remedies
available to every citizen in accordance with the Code of
Criminal Procedure 1973;
(iv)
Ensuring that in order to enable the citizen to pursue legal
remedies, a protection of personal liberty against coercive
steps be granted for a limited duration in the meantime;
(v)
The investigation of an FIR should be allowed to take place
in accordance with law without this Court deploying its
jurisdiction under Article 32 to obstruct the due process of
law; and
(vi)
Assuaging the apprehension of the petitioner of a threat to
his safety and the safety of his business establishment.
9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
apprised this Court, on instructions, that the petitioner had no objection
to the transfer of FIR 238 of 2020 which was lodged at Police Station
Sadar, District Nagpur City to NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai
for the purpose of investigation. Mr Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra similarly had no objection
to this course of action. This is recorded specifically in the order passed
by this Court on 24 April 2020 in the following terms:
ARNAB RANJAN GOSWAMI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
236
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 8 S.C.R.
"9 The Court was apprised by Mr Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior
counsel, on seeking instructions, that the petitioner would have no
objection if the FIR which has been lodged at Nagpur is transferred
for the purpose of investigation to the N M Joshi Marg Police
Station, Mumbai, where the petitioner has lodged an FIR on 23
April 2020. The FIR by the petitioner is in relation to an incident
which took place at midnight, during the course of which, he and
his spouse were obstructed by two persons and an alleged to
have been subjected to an assault, while returning home from the
studio.
10 Mr Sibal has indicated that there should be no objection to the
transfer of the FIR which has been lodged at Nagpur to Mumbai."
Consequently, this Court, by its interim order:
(i)
Transferred FIR 238 of 2020 lodged at Police Station Sadar,
District Nagpur City to the NM Joshi Marg Police Station in
Mumbai with a clarification that the petitioner shall cooperate
in the investigation;
(ii)
Stayed further proceedings arising out of the complaints and
FIRs other than the one which had been instituted at Police
Station Sadar, District Nagpur City and stood transferred;
(iii) Allowed the investigation to proceed in FIR 238 of 2020 which
was transferred from Police Station Sadar, District Nagpur
City to the NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai;
(iv) Protected the petitioner against coercive steps arising out of
and in relation to the above FIR, in relation to the telecast
dated 21 April 2020;
(v)
Granted liberty to the petitioner to move an application for
anticipatory bail before the Bombay High Court under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 19734 and to pursue
such other remedies as are available in law. It was clarified
that any such application shall be considered on its own merits
by the competent court;
(vi) Stayed further proceedings in respect of any other FIR, or
as the case may be, criminal complaints which have been
4 "CrPC"
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
237
filed or which may thereafter be filed with respect to the
same incident; and
(vii) Directed the Commissioner of Police5, Mumbai to consider
the request of the petitioner for being provided with security
at his residence and at the business establishment.
10. Following the interim order of this Court, several interim
applications were filed in the course of the proceedings. The details of
each of the IAs are necessary to facilitate our eventual analysis of the
case:
IA No 48585 of 2020: filed by the petitioner
11. The petitioner submits that:
(i)
The Mumbai police is not conducting a fair and impartial
investigation in relation to FIR 238 of 20206 which has been
transferred from Police Station Sadar, District Nagpur City
to NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai for investigation;
(ii)
The manner in which the investigation has been conducted
by the Mumbai police leads to the "inescapable conclusion"
that the authorities "harbor grave malice and mala fide
intention" against the petitioner;
(iii)
The investigation is politically motivated and has been
conducted with "a pre-determined and pre-meditated
objective" to arm-twist, harass and humiliate the petitioner
and his family and to diminish his right to free speech and
expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution;
(iv)
Since the petitioner's news channel is questioning the
complicity of the Maharashtra police in the Palghar incident
and the police fall under the administration and control of
the State government (ruled by an alliance government of
the INC), there is a clear conflict of interest in the investigation
by the Mumbai police; and
(v)
It is necessary that the investigation is stayed to prevent any
miscarriage of justice. These apprehensions are sought to
be established on the basis of the following averments:
5 "CP"
6 Renumbered as FIR 164 of 2020 at NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai.
ARNAB RANJAN GOSWAMI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
238
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 8 S.C.R.
(a) On 25 April 2020, the petitioner was served with a notice
under Section 41(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
19737 summoning him to the police station on 26 April
2020;
(b) On 26 April 2020, the petitioner expressed his
willingness to appear before the Investigating Officer8
through Video Conferencing9;
(c) Rejecting the above request, the IO called upon the
petitioner by a summons dated 26 April 2020 to be
physically present at NM Joshi Marg Police Station in
Mumbai on 27 April 2020;
(d) On 27 April 2020, the petitioner was questioned without
a break for nearly twelve hours during which he was
not allowed to keep possession of his mobile phone or
to wear his personal fitness band;
(e) During the course of the investigation, the petitioner was
informed by the Mumbai police that the complainant Dr
Nitin Kashinath Raut, who is a Cabinet Minister in the
Maharashtra government and a working President of
the INC, had filed a supplementary statement indicating
when he had been provided with a clip of the broadcast;
(f) A substantial bulk of the questions during the investigation
was in relation to a small segment comprising fifteen
seconds out of a total broadcast of fifty-two minutes;
(g) During the course of the investigation, the petitioner was
asked by the IO whether he had defamed or maligned
the President of the INC in the course of the broadcast
on 21 April 2020;
(h) FIR 164 of 2020 is not based on a complaint by the
President of the INC and hence, it is inconceivable as
to how the IO could have questioned the petitioner on
an alleged act of defamation which he, in any event,
denies;
7 "CrPC"
8 "IO"
9 "VC"
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
239
(i) Tweets made on the social media by members of the
INC during and around the time of the investigation
indicate that the Mumbai police was relying on real time
information during the course of the interrogation by
"their political masters";
(j) Questions posed to the petitioner during the course of
the investigation have no nexus to FIR 164 of 2020.
The questions which were posed included the following:
"(i) Corporate structure of the Petitioner's company,
ARG Outlier Media Asianet Private Limited ("ARG")
including its board of directors. ARG owns and operates
Republic TV and R. Bharat.
(ii) Process of obtaining broadcasting licenses by the
news channels of the Petitioner.
(iii) Location of archives of Petitioner's news channels;
whether the Hindi channel of the Petitioner, R. Bharat
is based outside or inside Maharashtra.
(iv) Does the Petitioner's news channel send recordings
of news reports to the Central Government (this
question was asked multiple times.)
(v) Process of selecting panelists for debates aired on
Petitioner's news channels. Are the panelists paid
remuneration by the Petitioner's news channel for this
purpose.
(vi) Does the Petitioner own the house in which he is
currently staying or pays rent."
(k)
The complainant, Dr Nitin Kashinath Raut was interviewed
on 29 April 2020 by a reporter of Republic TV in regard to
the contradictions between the statement in the FIR and his
subsequent supplementary statement as to the place where
he had watched the video clip. In response to the query
posed to him in the interview, the complainant stated:
"There is no need to be confused over this point,
whatever I have mentioned in my statement, it is true.
After watching at home, I also got a clip, which was
ARNAB RANJAN GOSWAMI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
240
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 8 S.C.R.
sent to me from my party office. When I say that I
watched it earlier, it's the truth, and later I watched a
clip, which is mentioned in the complaint that I filed in
the police station. If you have read Article 19(1) of the
Constitution, where freedom of expression and thought
is mentioned but nowhere does it allow crossing the limits
or making extreme comments. There are restrictions
mentioned and Mr Arnab has violated them. I have a lot
of respect of Mr Arnab, he's a senior journalist, and he
has handled the media well till now but what happened
lately. I don't know. During his speech, he forgot that
he's a citizen of this country and a citizen has to abide
by the Constitution. I have always supported freedom
of expression for journalists but the question is, these
comments involve a clear attempt to incite a riot. Arnab
was questioned for along during because he's facing a
charge of criminal conspiracy, involving IPC 153, IPC
153(a) and others. You raise the point of him being
questioned for 12 to 12.5 hours, I want to ask you that
this country's former home minister and former finance
minister P Chidambaram was made to sit for so many
hours, why did that happen? You people never raise
questions on the reason behind that interrogation. I have
heard that clip and Arnab tried to stoke communal
sentiments in that speech. No one gave him that right,
not even the Constitution."
(l)
On 30 April 2020, the IO issued two notices to the Chief
Financial Officer10 of Republic TV under Sections 91 and
160 of the CrPC requesting for documents. Pursuant to the
notice, the CFO appeared before the Mumbai police with
publicly available documents and copies of broadcast
licenses.