Date of the Judgment: September 10, 2008
Judges: R. V. Raveendran, J., Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.
Can a radio jockey be arrested for comments made during a show? The Supreme Court addressed this question in the case of Jonathan Nitin Brady vs. State of West Bengal, where an FIR was filed against a radio jockey for allegedly promoting ill-feelings amongst different communities. The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to the appellant, emphasizing that there was no satisfactory reason for custodial interrogation. This case highlights the importance of freedom of speech and expression while also addressing the sensitivities of different communities.
Case Background
The appellant, Jonathan Nitin Brady, worked as a Radio Jockey at New Delhi with the Radio Channel ‘Red FM 93.5’. On September 24, 2007, during his morning show called “Morning No.1,” which was broadcasted only in New Delhi from 7-11 a.m., the appellant discussed Mr. Prashant Tamang’s victory in the Tele-Series called “Indian Idol.”
On September 25, 2007, the appellant learned through media reports that certain sections of the public in West Bengal were purportedly hurt due to misinterpretation of the discussion on the show.
On September 27, 2007, certain fans of Mr. Prashant Tamang, including Mr. Dinesh Gurung, filed a written complaint, leading to the registration of FIR No.125/2007 under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the appellant in Sadar Police Station, Darjeeling. The remarks attributed to the appellant in the FIR were:
“If Chowkidars are the Indian Idols (meaning Prashant Tamang), then where from we are to obtain Chowkidars.”
The FIR alleged that the appellant’s comments promoted ill-feelings amongst different races and communities in India and were prejudicial to communal harmony. The complainants also alleged that the appellant had deliberately insulted the “Gorkhali/Nepali” community.
On October 1, 2007, the Inspector-in-Charge, Sadar P.S. Darjeeling (W.B.), requested the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darjeeling, to issue a warrant of arrest against the appellant. On October 6, 2007, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darjeeling, issued the arrest warrant.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| September 24, 2007 | Appellant discussed Mr. Prashant Tamang’s victory in “Indian Idol” during his radio show. |
| September 25, 2007 | Appellant learned about public sentiments being hurt due to misinterpretation of his remarks. |
| September 27, 2007 | FIR No.125/2007 was registered against the appellant under Section 153A of the IPC. |
| October 1, 2007 | Inspector-in-Charge requested the issuance of an arrest warrant against the appellant. |
| October 6, 2007 | Arrest warrant was issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darjeeling. |
| October 29, 2007 | High Court rejected the appellant’s application for anticipatory bail. |
| September 10, 2008 | Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to the appellant. |
Arguments
The appellant approached the High Court for anticipatory bail, arguing that he never made the statements attributed to him and that the necessary mens rea for constituting an offence under Section 153A of the IPC was missing. The appellant stated that the entire show was based on humor and satire, and he had not made any explicit statements portraying any community in a bad light. He also mentioned that he tendered an apology on September 26, 2007, for any unintentional hurt caused to the sentiments of any community.
The Radio Channel also issued a Press Release on September 27, 2007, congratulating Mr. Tamang and quoting his remarks regarding the entire sequence of events being a misunderstanding. The Channel further published an advertisement saluting Mr. Tamang’s victory and reaffirming its commitment to promoting musical talent in North-East India.
The respondent-State argued that the elements of Section 153A of the IPC were satisfactorily made out, and the apology tendered by the appellant could not modify the gravity of the situation. The State also pointed out the widespread repercussions of the remarks made by the petitioner on the local area from where Mr. Prashant Tamang hails.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether the appellant should be granted anticipatory bail given the circumstances of the case.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellant should be granted anticipatory bail | Yes, anticipatory bail was granted. | The Court found no satisfactory reason for custodial interrogation and believed the appellant could be interrogated without being taken into custody. |
Authorities
The court considered the following legal provision:
- Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code: This section deals with promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.
| Authority | How it was Considered |
|---|---|
| Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code | The High Court held that the elements of this section were satisfactorily made out. However, the Supreme Court did not express a definitive opinion on this point but found no reason for custodial interrogation. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | Treatment by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s plea for anticipatory bail | Granted, subject to conditions. |
| State’s argument that Section 153A of IPC was applicable | The Supreme Court did not make a definitive finding but granted bail, indicating a need for further examination without custodial interrogation. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with whether custodial interrogation was necessary in this case. The Court noted that the appellant could be interrogated without being taken into custody, suggesting that the alleged offense did not warrant immediate arrest.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| No need for custodial interrogation | 60% |
| Possibility of interrogation without arrest | 40% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (Factual aspects of the case) | 30% |
| Law (Legal considerations) | 70% |
Key Takeaways
- Anticipatory bail can be granted if there is no convincing reason for custodial interrogation.
- Freedom of speech and expression must be balanced with the need to maintain communal harmony.
- Apologies and clarifications can be considered in assessing the intent behind potentially offensive statements.
Conclusion
In the case of Jonathan Nitin Brady vs. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to the appellant, a radio jockey accused of promoting ill-feelings between communities. The Court emphasized that there was no satisfactory reason for custodial interrogation, highlighting the importance of balancing freedom of speech with the need to maintain communal harmony.