SC refuses to transfer cases to CBI, grants protection to Arnab Goswami for 3 weeks

Satya Prakash

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, May 19

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Republic TV Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami's petitions seeking quashing of two FIRs against him for allegedly communalising lynching of two Hindu sadhus at Palghar and an incident of migrant workers gathering at Bandra railway station in Mumbai during COVID19 lockdown.

Maintaining that quashing of FIRs couldn’t be done on a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, a Bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud said he could pursue appropriate remedy before a competent court.

The Bench -- which also included Justice MR Shah -- turned down his plea for transfer of cases being probed by police in Maharashtra to the CBI.

However, it extended the protection from coercive action given to him for further three weeks.

The top court ordered the Mumbai Police Commissioner to ensure protection of Goswami who was once attacked while heading home from work last month.

No other FIR or complaint shall be entertained or pursued on the basis of broadcast made by Goswami on April 21 on lynching of Hindu saints at Palghar, the top court said while ordering consolidation of FIRs.

Maintaining that journalists enjoyed fundamental right to free speech, the Bench said it was not an absolute right.

Goswami had on May 5 moved the Supreme Court seeking quashing of a fresh FIR registered against him by Raza Educational Welfare Society secretary Irfan Abubakar Shaikh accusing him of disturbing communal harmony through his Hindi show on Republic Bharat by allegedly communalising the April 14 incident at Bandra railway station.

Goswami is also facing probe in another case registered against him at Nagpur and transferred to Mumbai in connection with his alleged remarks against Congress president Sonia Gandhi during his shows on Republic TV on mob-lynching of two Hindu saints in Palghar, Maharashtra.

The Supreme Court had on April 24 stayed all coercive action against Goswami for three weeks in connection with multiple FIRs by Congress workers but had allowed probe into the Nagpur FIR.

Earlier this month, the Maharashtra Government had alleged before the Supreme Court that Goswami was attempting to “browbeat” Mumbai Police by “creating a fear psychosis”. 

On behalf of Goswami, senior advocate Harish Salve had alleged that he was being targeted due to political vendetta. 

"This is a political party targeting a journalist...all complainants are members of one political party (Congress). They have a problem with the government (Centre) and they want to teach this journalist (Arnab) a lesson," Salve had submitted.

He had sought transfer of cases against Goswami to the CBI, saying there was a political problem between Maharashtra and the Centre. "I have been caught in crossfire.’’

Salve had said interrogation of his client was done during lockdown. “Our apprehensions have turned out to be true. Two officers who questioned him were asymptomatic and now one has tested COVID19 positive.’’ 

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had favoured handing over the probe to some other agency. If the court thought an offence was prima facie made out then it should be handled by an independent agency, Mehta had said.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the Maharashtra government, had accused Goswami of sensationalising and stigmatising people.