‘Every case is different,’ says SC on Arnab Goswami’s bail


New Delhi: When asked by lead attorney Kapil Sibal why the Supreme Court had heard Republic TV chief Arnab Goswami’s bail statement, but was eager to take the statement against the arrest of journalist Siddique Kappan to a lower court, the Supreme Court observed: “Every case is different. “

A bench of the Chief Justice of India SA Bobde and Justices AS Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian were hearing a habeas corpus petition from the Kerala Union of Worker Journalists (KUWJ) against Kappan’s arrest. The Kerala-based journalist was arrested on his way to Hathras, where a young Dalit had died after being gang-raped by upper-caste men.

When CJI Bobde asked KUWJ to move the Allahabad high court, Sibal said: “The high court has granted one month of habeas corpus time for other defendants in the same case and I want to discuss here.”

“In the case of Arnab Goswami, bail was pending before a lower court and yet this court considered it,” he added.

“Every case is different,” the CJI told Sibal, according to a transcript provided by Bar and Bank.

According to PTI, the CJI later added: “It shows us any precedent in which an association has moved the court in search of redress,” making an ostensible reference to KUWJ. Sibal offered to deploy Kappan’s wife and others in the plea.

“We want to hear the case in accordance with the law and the matter should have been heard in the higher court,” the court said.

The hearing was also attended by Attorney General Tushar Mehta, who represented the Uttar Pradesh government and who argued that the Kappan, whom Sibal had met, was not the party in the matter being heard.

Kappan was allowed to have a brief conversation with his attorney by phone on November 18, 43 days after his arrest.

Mehta also requested a postponement for submitting a rejoinder affidavit to a contrary affidavit submitted by the KUWJ on claims made by the UP government about the journalist.

Please do not list after two weeks. It’s about freedom, ”Sibal pleaded with the court. However, the court rejected his request and sent the matter to a hearing the next week.

In particular, in granting bail to Goswami, who had been arrested by the Maharashtra police for a case of complicity in suicide in 2018, the Supreme Court had highlighted that “we are traveling down a path of destruction of undeniable personal freedom “.

On November 16, at a hearing on the same petition, the CJI had made the infamous observation: “We are trying to discourage Article 32 petitions.” On November 20, he said that media reports on this observation had been “unfair.” Among those who had recently complied with an Article 32 petition was Goswami.

‘Shocking findings’

Over the course of the brief hearing, Mehta also claimed that the Kappan investigation has revealed “shocking” details.

Uttar Pradesh had recently submitted an affidavit in the high court alleging that Kappan would go to Hathras “under the garb of journalism with a very determined design to create a caste division and disturb the situation of law and order.”

The state has alleged in its affidavit that Kappan is the secretary of the Popular Front of India (PFI) office and had the identity card of a Kerela-based newspaper that was shut down in 2018.

In its counter-affidavit filed on the matter, KUWJ has urged the high court that a retired superior court judge carry out an independent investigation to determine the facts of the alleged illegal arrest and detention.

The KUWJ has claimed that the “PFI” claim of the Uttar Pradesh Police is completely false.

KUWJ alleged that the state had submitted a misleading affidavit, misrepresenting the facts to justify his illegal and unlawful detention and malicious prosecution of Kappan, and there are no materials to support the allegations against him.

He has said that Kappan had tried to visit Hathras on October 5 to fulfill his journalistic duties and that he had intimidated his employer before his trip.

In addition to KUWJ’s allegations that Kappan has been in the Mathura jail in unsatisfactory conditions, he was also not allowed to meet with his lawyer any longer.

(With PTI inputs)

.