[ad_1]
The Supreme Court granted journalist Friday Arnab Goswami three weeks of protection against any “coercive action” against him by the police in a hate case.
Also read: 3 lynched in Palghar
A bank run by Judge D.Y. Chandrachud, who overheard the case via video conference, said Goswami can use the time to request early bail.
The court also allowed the case registered in Nagpur to be transferred to Mumbai, where the investigation would continue.
Also read: Drop Case Against Hindu Journalist: Editors Guild of India
The Bank held new actions on other FIRs registered against it in the States, including Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Punjab, Telangana, and Jammu and Kashmir.
Goswami moved to the Supreme Court on Thursday night. In the next two hours he had listed the request to cancel the FIRs before the Chandrachud Bank of Justice. The court is being called just to hear “extremely urgent” cases during the shutdown.
Also read: Journalists condemn FIR against Siddharth Varadarajan
In an hour-long hearing, Mr. Goswami, represented by chief counsel Mukul Rohatgi, justified the “extremely urgent circumstances” as several members of the Congress party registered several FIRs against him in states governed by the party or its political allies. . Mr. Rohatgi argued that FIRs were shelved by members of Congress in retaliation for their television shows in Republic TV on April 16 and R. Bharat April 21.
Goswami said he had only “provocatively” questioned comments made by “a member of Congress regarding India’s COVID-19 evidence measures and the unfortunate lynching of three individuals [including two priests] in Palghar on April 16, 2020. “
He said he had “reasonable and tangible reason to believe that other FIRs will also register at the behest of members of the Indian National Congress in serious violation of their fundamental rights.” The court said no action will be taken on future complaints about it.
Mr. Rohatgi argued that his client had only asked the “head of Congress” in the public interest. He had further debated the role of the police as a protective force. Goswami also sought police protection, saying that he was attacked by two men. The court has asked the Mumbai police to take steps to protect him.
Goswami said FIRs and attacks on him were a severe blow to freedom of expression and the free press.
Sibal’s argument
Chief attorney Kapil Sibal, from the Maharashtra government, responded that comments that ignite community violence cannot be protected like freedom of expression. He said that nothing prevented members of Congress from filing complaints. Congressman Rahul Gandhi appears in defamation cases brought by BJP members in various states. FIRs can be filed against anyone. The police should have a free hand to investigate.
Chief Counsel Vivek Tankha, for Chhattisgarh, agreed with Mr. Sibal and argued that the atmosphere cannot be vitiated at the time of a national closure.
At one point, Judge Chandrachud asked why Mr. Goswami had not asked that the cases be rejected, as they stem from the same case.
In his rebuttal, Mr. Rohatgi referred to the petition to argue that his client was “firmly opposed to any spread of any communalization by other political parties for their own vested interests.”
He said it was “inconceivable that the broadcast was broadcast on April 21 in connection with the Palghar Incident it could have incited any community tension. “
