[ad_1]
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused Republic TV editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami of the transfer request of the Mumbai Police in the probe on its emissions relative to the Palghar mob of lynching and the Bandra Station fiasco to the IWC while extending his protection from the arrest of three weeks.
A Bench led by Justice D. Y. Chandrachud said that despite the freedom of the Press to speak truth to power, a guarantee of the free people and nation, journalistic license was not absolute, but subject to certain reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
“India’s freedoms rest-assured, if and when journalists can speak to power without being chilled by a threat of retaliation… The exercise of that fundamental right is not absolute and is liable to the legal regime enacted with reference to the provisions of Article 19(2),” Justice Chandrachud, who wrote the 56-page judgment for the Bench, observed.
The Bench, comprising Justice M. R. Shah, confirmed its interim order on April 24, a transfer from Nagpur to Mumbai, an FIR registered against Mr Goswami, accusing him of incitement to hatred through its April 21 issue. It was said that the Mumbai Police in the investigation of the FIR would continue.
The transfer of an ongoing probe of the State police to the CBI was not a matter of routine. Should be done sparingly and in exceptional circumstances, the court said.
Goswami’s position
Mr. Goswami, who had accused the Mumbai Police of bad faith and conflict of interest as they came under the government of Maharashtra of the Indian National Congress, was a decision of the couple. Mr. Goswami had made allegations against the Commissioner of Police of Mumbai. The solicitor General Tushar Mehta had even intervened at the hearing in favor of a transfer to the CBI, saying that the central agency was willing to accept the case. Mr. Mehta had found the conduct of the Mumbai Police “worrying”.
But the court came to the conclusion that the transfer of guilt was simply to “pre-empt an investigation by the Mumbai police”.
An accused may choose the mode of research, the line of questioning or the investigation agency for that matter, who said categorically.
In fact, the Justice Chandrachud Lord reminded Goswami of what the court said the former Union Finance Minister, P. Chidambaram in the INX Media case: “it must be left to the investigating agency to proceed in his own way in the examination of the accused, the nature of the questions asked and the form of interrogation of the accused”.
“The chagrin of an accused person about the way in which the research is continued or an accusation without foundation [as in the present case] of a conflict of interest against the police in charge of the investigation should not deflect the legitimate course of law and to guarantee the invocation of the extraordinary power of this court to transfer investigation to the CBI,” the Supreme Court concluded.
It is, however, quashed the complaint and Fir trees, except the one that is being investigated by the Mumbai Police, registered against him in other States. Are they all identically worded.
Justice Chandrachud observed that the registration of multiple FIRs by the police in the same occurrence would be an abuse of the regulatory power of the research. Submit to a journalist for several cases in several States stifles freedom of expression.
“Effectively destroys the liberty of the citizen to know of the affairs of government in the nation, and the right of the journalist to ensure an information society”, Justice Chandrachud wrote.
The court said that there are no more complaints or FIRs should be entertaining, on the basis of the broadcast made by Mr. Goswami on April 21.
He directed the Mumbai Police Commissioner to provide security at the residence and the “business” of the Lord Goswami based on the perception of threat.
.
[ad_2]
