New Delhi, India – Eight days after his arrest, in a rare hearing during a holiday recess, the Supreme Court of India granted bail to right-wing TV host Arnab Goswami, but critics have accused the high court of failing to show the same urgency. with other jailed journalists.
Goswami, who was arrested for a suicide case in 2018, emerged from a Mumbai prison on Thursday flanked by his supporters. The journalist, who has been accused of indulging Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s agenda on his late-night shows, has been charged with complicity in the suicide of an interior designer and his mother.
Goswami, the founder of the pro-government Republic TV, has denied the charges, claiming that it is a conspiracy to muzzle him by the Maharashtra government, which is led by a coalition of parties opposed to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
His arrest last week prompted swift condemnation from ministers, including powerful Interior Minister Amit Shah of the Modi government, who in turn has been accused of silencing dissent.
Selective treatment of the high and powerful like Goswami only reduces the credibility of the judiciary as an institution.
The swift hearing and bail granted to the divisive TV host has highlighted the cases of other journalists and activists who are going through or have gone through lengthy prison terms due to judicial delays.
“The judiciary in India is governed by a hierarchy: there is the lower judiciary, the higher courts and, at the top, the Supreme Court. All litigants have to follow this chain, except in rare cases where a higher court may intervene depending on the severity of the case, ”Tarannum Cheema, a New Delhi lawyer told Al Jazeera.
“It is quite surprising that the Supreme Court chose to hear Arnab’s trial [Goswami] matter when the lower court, in this case, the High Court, had already ordered that his bail statement be heard by a local court, ”Cheema said.
In its order, the court said: “We must send a message today also to the higher courts. Please exercise your jurisdiction to defend personal freedom … if this court did not interfere today, it is undeniable that we are traveling down a path of destruction of personal freedom.
Welcome ‘judicial verdict’
The national BJP spokesperson welcomed the granting of bail for Goswami. “I have known Arnab Goswami for 20 years and I know that he is a fighter. He was imprisoned in strange circumstances. We accept the court verdict, I am happy that he has been released, “Tom Vadakkan told Al Jazeera.
Goswami’s arrest and subsequent bail follows a series of cases involving journalists, students and activists, many of whom have been charged under draconian laws. [File: Anushree Fadnavis/Reuters]
Goswami’s arrest and subsequent bail follows a series of cases involving journalists, students and activists, many of whom have been charged under draconian laws such as sedition, the Illicit Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and the National Security Act (NSA).
It has been almost a month since we made a request to the Supreme Court. Arnab Goswami’s file was quickly reviewed. Why are there two standards of fairness?
Last month, journalist Siddique Kappan was arrested in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh (UP) while on his way to report on a case of gang rape and murder. Since then, he has been indicted under the UAPA by Modi’s BJP-led state government.
In contrast to the speed with which Goswami has managed to access justice, Siddique’s lawyer has not even had access to meet him.
“On October 6, we transferred a petition for habeas corpus in the Supreme Court, it was scheduled for October 12. That day the Supreme Court told us to go to the corresponding local court. A few days later, our request to meet Kappan in jail was rejected by the local court, ”Kappan’s attorney, Wills Mathews, told Al Jazeera.
“On October 29 we approached the Supreme Court again with a request for bail and seeking instructions that would allow us to meet with Kappan, we requested an urgent list on November 2, but due to the holidays, the court has included the matter for the Nov. 16”.
‘Two standards of justice’
Kappan’s wife, Rihanath, says her husband has been wrongly arrested.
“It has been almost a month since we made a request to the Supreme Court. Arnab Goswami’s file was quickly reviewed. Why are there two standards of fairness? ” she asked.
“My husband went to the UP to report. That was his mistake, his crime. But Goswami’s arrest is not like that. It is related to suicide. Why is your case more urgent? He is also a journalist. What is the difference?”
Earlier last month, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to Prashant Kanojia, 27, a Delhi-based freelance journalist, two months after the UP police arrested him for retweeting a related tweet. with the Ram temple in Ayodhya. This was the second time Kanojia was jailed by UP state police since 2019. In both cases, he was jailed for tweets critical of the BJP state government.
“Contrary to what many people believe, jail and not bail is the norm in lower courts,” Kanojia told Al Jazeera.
“I would only ask the Supreme Court to offer bail to all who deserve it and not just the rich and powerful like Goswami, who can afford the expensive Supreme Court attorneys.”
Kanojia was lucky as the national media highlighted her case, but journalists from northeast India and Indian-administered Kashmir have faced lengthy imprisonment. Kashmiri journalist Aasif Sultan, who was arrested on terrorism charges in 2018, is languishing in jail. The media watchdog, the Committee to Protect Journalists, has called for his release.
In the northeastern state of Manipur, Kishochandra Wangkhem, 39, a outspoken commentator, has been in jail for more than 40 days for what local authorities say are social media posts offensive to the community.
This is the second time that Wangkhem has been arrested. Last year he spent more than four months in prison under the NSA and sedition charges for posting a video on Facebook criticizing the state’s chief minister, Biren Singh, and Prime Minister Modi.
He was finally released in April 2020 by the Manipur High Court due to procedural lapses by the police.
“We will approach the court of sessions which, I hope, will follow the example set by the Supreme Court,” speaking of his second arrest, his lawyer Chongtham Victor told Al Jazeera.
Another journalist from the northeast region, Patricia Mukhim, was charged with criminal charges for discussing the lack of police action and justice for victims of violence against non-tribal people in Meghalaya state.
“I will file a petition for a special license in the Supreme Court. Following the latest court ruling, I am confident that I too will get a timely hearing and relief, as the reasons for defending personal freedom also apply to my case, ”said Mukhim, who is the editor of the Shillong Times.
‘The credibility of the judiciary’
Rights activists have also pointed out that 99 percent of habeas corpus petitions filed in High Court in the wake of the mass arrests that followed the removal of Kashmir’s special status are pending.
Legal experts point out that as of November 1, 63,693 cases were pending in the Supreme Court alone, while the total number of pending cases throughout the country is around 40 million.
Given the backlog, there is invariably a long waiting period before the country’s highest court takes cases.
But which cases are listed in priority is a prerogative of the court. This opaque selection criteria has come under fire of late, especially with respect to bail statements involving academics such as Professor Anand Teltumbde, attorney Sudha Bharadwaj, and activists and social workers such as 84-year-old Stan Swamy and Varavara. Rao, 79, all of them. they are in prison under the UAPA. On Thursday, the Mumbai High Court denied Rao bail despite the fact that the investigating agency admitted that he is in poor health.
On Friday, comedian Kunal Kamra was held in contempt for his tweets criticizing the high court’s decision to grant Goswami bail. Kamra has refused to apologize for his tweets.
The chairman of the Indian Supreme Court Bar Association highlighted the subjectivity in hearing the pleas in a letter on November 10.
“In April of this year too, Goswami had received an almost instantaneous hearing in the Supreme Court and also got relief. I am not against the latest verdict or Goswami. I just want all lawyers and their clients to have equal access to a judicial remedy, ”Dushyant A Dave told Al Jazeera.
“Selective treatment of the high and powerful like Goswami only reduces the credibility of the judiciary as an institution.”
.
