Supreme Court Quashes Multiple FIRs Against Journalist Arnab Ranjan Goswami: Freedom of Speech Prevails (2020)

Date of the Judgment: 19 May 2020
Citation: Where available, provide the case citation in the Indian Supreme Court (INSC) format.
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and M R Shah, J
Can a journalist be subjected to multiple criminal complaints across different states for the same broadcast? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving journalist Arnab Ranjan Goswami, who faced a barrage of FIRs following his news broadcasts. The Court had to balance the need to prevent harassment with the importance of allowing legitimate investigations to proceed. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ.

Case Background

The case originated from broadcasts on Republic TV on 16 April 2020, and R Bharat on 21 April 2020, regarding an incident in Gadchinchle village, Palghar district, Maharashtra, where three individuals, including two sadhus, were killed. Following these broadcasts, numerous FIRs and criminal complaints were lodged against Arnab Ranjan Goswami, the Editor-in-Chief of Republic TV and Managing Director of ARG Outlier Media Asianet News Private Limited, across several states and union territories.

The petitioner claimed that the broadcasts questioned the tardy investigation of the Palghar incident and the silence of the Maharashtra government. He alleged that a “well-coordinated, widespread, vindictive and malicious campaign” was launched against him by the Indian National Congress (INC) and its activists, leading to the filing of multiple complaints.

The petitioner also referred to an incident on 23 April 2020, where he was allegedly confronted by two individuals on a motorcycle who identified themselves as members of the INC. An FIR was registered at the behest of the petitioner at NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai regarding this incident.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions:

• Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
• Sections 153, 153A, 153B, 295A, 298, 500, 504, 506, 120B, and 117 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: These sections deal with offences related to promoting enmity between different groups, deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings, defamation, intentional insult, criminal intimidation, criminal conspiracy, and abetting the commission of an offence.
• Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines defamation.
• Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Stipulates the procedure for prosecution for defamation.
• Section 41(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Pertains to the power of the police to summon a person.
• Section 91 and 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Pertains to the power of the police to issue summons to produce documents and to summon witnesses.
• Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Allows for anticipatory bail.
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Deals with the inherent powers of the High Court.
• Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Pertains to the registration of the First Information Report (FIR).
• Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Pertains to the power of the Magistrate to order investigation.
• Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Deals with the police report after investigation.

The Supreme Court also considered the interplay between these provisions and the constitutional safeguards for freedom of speech, particularly in the context of journalistic expression.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner (Arnab Ranjan Goswami):

• The multiple FIRs lodged against the petitioner are intended to stifle his freedom of speech and expression as a journalist, which is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
• The investigation by the Mumbai police is mala fide and politically motivated, as evidenced by the nature of questions asked during interrogation, which were unrelated to the FIR.
• The FIRs and complaints were filed in states where the governments are aligned with the INC, indicating an ulterior motive.
• The petitioner has been targeted for expressing views critical of the President of the INC.
• There is a conflict of interest in the Mumbai police investigating the case, as the petitioner has criticized the Maharashtra police and State Government for their handling of the Palghar incident.
• The investigation should be stayed or transferred to the CBI to ensure a fair and impartial process.
• The questions posed to the petitioner and the CFO during investigation were extraneous to the FIR, such as the corporate structure of the company, broadcasting licenses, and personal details.

Arguments on behalf of the Union of India:

• The conduct of the state police in the present case is disturbing.
• The police, as an investigating agency, has sought insulation from the accused.
• Investigation by an agency which allays any apprehension of victimization would be the appropriate course of action.

Arguments on behalf of the State of Maharashtra:

• The petitions are an attempt to seek directions from the Supreme Court to monitor the course of the investigation, which is impermissible.
• The petitioner has no locus to question the line of investigation or nature of the interrogation.
• The petitioner’s rights under Article 19(1)(a) are subject to the limitations stipulated in Article 19(2).
• The petitioner has made a conscious effort to stifle the investigation by an unrestrained use of social media.
• Mumbai police has no territorial jurisdiction or connection with the investigation which has been conducted into the Palghar incident.
• The petitioner has made baseless allegations against the CP, Mumbai only after his interrogation.
• The second FIR is premature as no investigation has commenced.
• The petitioner has not moved the Bombay High Court for quashing the FIRs or for the grant of anticipatory bail.

Arguments on behalf of the Complainant (in the second FIR):

• The FIR which was lodged on 2 May 2020 pertains to a broadcast which took place on 29 April 2020.
• The maintainability of the Writ Petitions under Article 32 is questioned.
• The statements made by the petitioner in the course of the programmes which were broadcast clearly implicate offences under Sections 153A, 295A and cognate provisions of the IPC.

Submissions of the Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for consideration:

1. Whether multiple FIRs are maintainable for the same cause of action.
2. The extent of protection of journalistic freedom under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
3. Whether the investigation should be transferred to the CBI.
4. Whether the FIR under investigation at NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai covers the offence of criminal defamation under Section 499 of the IPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Cases:

• TT Antony v State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181: This case established that there cannot be a second FIR for the same cause of action. The Court relied on this case to quash multiple FIRs filed against the petitioner.
• Upkar Singh v Ved Prakash, (2004) 13 SCC 292: This case clarified that a second complaint in the form of a counter-complaint is not prohibited. The court distinguished this case from the present case, as there was no counter-complaint.
• Ram Lal Narang v State (Delhi Administration), (1979) 2 SCC 322: This case was referred to in Upkar Singh, and it dealt with the permissibility of further investigation even after submission of the police report.
• Kari Choudhary v Mst. Sita Devi, (2002) 1 SCC 714: This case held that when there are rival versions of the same episode, they can take the shape of two different FIRs. This was distinguished from the present case, where the FIRs were identical.
• State of Bihar v JAC Saldanha, (1980) 1 SCC 554: This case discussed the power of the Magistrate to order further investigation.
• Babubhai v State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254: This case reiterated the principle that if two FIRs relate to the same incident or transaction, the second FIR is liable to be quashed.
• Chirra Shivraj v State of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 14 SCC 444: This case was cited to support the principle that if two FIRs relate to the same incident or transaction, the second FIR is liable to be quashed.
• Chirag M Pathak v Dollyben Kantilal Patel, (2018) 1 SCC 330: This case was cited to support the principle that if two FIRs relate to the same incident or transaction, the second FIR is liable to be quashed.
• State of West Bengal v Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal, (2010) 3 SCC 571: This case laid down the principles for the transfer of an investigation to the CBI, stating that it is an extraordinary power to be used sparingly.
• K V Rajendran v Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai, (2013) 12 SCC 480: This case reiterated that the transfer of an investigation to the CBI must be in rare and exceptional cases.
• Romila Thapar v Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 753: This case affirmed that the accused does not have a say in the appointment of the investigating agency.
• Narmada Bai v State of Gujarat, (2011) 5 SCC 79: This case was cited in Romila Thapar to support the principle that the accused does not have a say in the appointment of the investigating agency.
• Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt v Union of India, (2016) 1 SCC 1: This case was cited in Romila Thapar to support the principle that the accused does not have a say in the appointment of the investigating agency.
• E Sivakumar v Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 365: This case was cited in Romila Thapar to support the principle that the accused does not have a say in the appointment of the investigating agency.
• Divine Retreat Centre v State of Kerala, (2008) 3 SCC 542: This case was cited in Romila Thapar to support the principle that the accused does not have a say in the appointment of the investigating agency.
• P Chidambaram v Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24: This case held that it is not the function of the court to monitor the investigation process and that the investigating agency has discretion over the course of investigation.
• State of Bihar v P P Sharma, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 222: This case was cited in P Chidambaram to support the principle that the investigating agency has discretion over the course of investigation.
• Dukhishyam Benupani, Asst. Director, Enforcement Directorate (FERA) v Arun Kumar Bajoria, (1998) 1 SCC 52: This case was cited in P Chidambaram to support the principle that the investigating agency has discretion over the course of investigation.
• Director, Central Bureau of Investigation v Niyamavedi represented by its Member K Nandini, Advocate, (1995) 3 SCC 601: This case held that courts should refrain from interfering in the investigation process.
• Subramanian Swamy v Union of India, Ministry of Law, (2016) 7 SCC 221: This case held that in cases of criminal defamation, neither an FIR can be filed nor can a direction be issued under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. Only a complaint can be instituted by a person aggrieved.

Legal Provisions:

• Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
• Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India: Stipulates the limitations on the freedom of speech and expression.
• Sections 153, 153A, 153B, 295A, 298, 500, 504, 506, 120B, and 117 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: These sections deal with offences related to promoting enmity between different groups, deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings, defamation, intentional insult, criminal intimidation, criminal conspiracy, and abetting the commission of an offence.
• Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines defamation.
• Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Stipulates the procedure for prosecution for defamation.
• Section 41(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Pertains to the power of the police to summon a person.
• Section 91 and 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Pertains to the power of the police to issue summons to produce documents and to summon witnesses.
• Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Allows for anticipatory bail.
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Deals with the inherent powers of the High Court.
• Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Pertains to the registration of the First Information Report (FIR).
• Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Pertains to the power of the Magistrate to order investigation.
• Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Deals with the police report after investigation.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• TT Antony v State of Kerala [CITATION]: The Court followed this authority, holding that multiple FIRs for the same cause of action are not maintainable.
• Upkar Singh v Ved Prakash [CITATION]: The Court distinguished this authority, clarifying that it does not apply to the present case, as there was no counter-complaint.
• Ram Lal Narang v State (Delhi Administration) [CITATION]: The Court noted this authority in the context of Upkar Singh, but it was not directly applied in the present case.
• Kari Choudhary v Mst. Sita Devi [CITATION]: The Court distinguished this authority, as the FIRs in the present case were identical, unlike the rival versions in Kari Choudhary.
• State of Bihar v JAC Saldanha [CITATION]: The Court noted this authority in the context of Upkar Singh, but it was not directly applied in the present case.
• Babubhai v State of Gujarat [CITATION]: The Court followed this authority, reiterating that if two FIRs relate to the same incident or transaction, the second FIR is liable to be quashed.
• Chirra Shivraj v State of Andhra Pradesh [CITATION]: The Court followed this authority, reiterating that if two FIRs relate to the same incident or transaction, the second FIR is liable to be quashed.
• Chirag M Pathak v Dollyben Kantilal Patel [CITATION]: The Court followed this authority, reiterating that if two FIRs relate to the same incident or transaction, the second FIR is liable to be quashed.
• State of West Bengal v Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal [CITATION]: The Court followed this authority, reiterating that the transfer of an investigation to the CBI is an extraordinary power to be used sparingly.
• K V Rajendran v Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai [CITATION]: The Court followed this authority, reiterating that the transfer of an investigation to the CBI must be in rare and exceptional cases.
• Romila Thapar v Union of India [CITATION]: The Court followed this authority, reiterating that the accused does not have a say in the appointment of the investigating agency.
• Narmada Bai v State of Gujarat [CITATION]: The Court noted this authority in the context of Romila Thapar, but it was not directly applied in the present case.
• Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt v Union of India [CITATION]: The Court noted this authority in the context of Romila Thapar, but it was not directly applied in the present case.
• E Sivakumar v Union of India [CITATION]: The Court noted this authority in the context of Romila Thapar, but it was not directly applied in the present case.
• Divine Retreat Centre v State of Kerala [CITATION]: The Court noted this authority in the context of Romila Thapar, but it was not directly applied in the present case.
• P Chidambaram v Directorate of Enforcement [CITATION]: The Court followed this authority, holding that it is not the function of the court to monitor the investigation process.
• State of Bihar v P P Sharma [CITATION]: The Court noted this authority in the context of P Chidambaram, but it was not directly applied in the present case.
• Dukhishyam Benupani, Asst. Director, Enforcement Directorate (FERA) v Arun Kumar Bajoria [CITATION]: The Court noted this authority in the context of P Chidambaram, but it was not directly applied in the present case.
• Director, Central Bureau of Investigation v Niyamavedi represented by its Member K Nandini, Advocate [CITATION]: The Court followed this authority, reiterating thatcourts should refrain from interfering in the investigation process.
• Subramanian Swamy v Union of India, Ministry of Law [CITATION]: The Court followed this authority, holding that in cases of criminal defamation, neither an FIR can be filed nor can a direction be issued under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. Only a complaint can be instituted by a person aggrieved.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court delivered the following final judgment:

1. All FIRs, except the one registered at NM Joshi Marg Police Station, Mumbai, were quashed.
2. The investigation at NM Joshi Marg Police Station, Mumbai, was allowed to proceed.
3. The Court clarified that the FIR under investigation at NM Joshi Marg Police Station, Mumbai does not and cannot cover any alleged act of criminal defamation under Section 499 of the IPC.
4. The Court rejected the plea for transferring the investigation to the CBI.
5. The Court emphasized the importance of journalistic freedom under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution but noted that this right is subject to reasonable restrictions.

Flowchart of the Case

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment is significant for several reasons:

• Protection of Journalistic Freedom: The Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of journalistic freedom under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, emphasizing that journalists must be able to speak truth to power without fear of reprisal.
• Limitation on Multiple FIRs: The judgment clarified that multiple FIRs for the same cause of action are not maintainable, preventing the harassment of individuals through a barrage of complaints.
• Balance of Rights: The Court balanced the need to protect free speech with the need to allow legitimate investigations to proceed, ensuring that the right to free speech is not used as a shield for criminal activity.
• Judicial Restraint: The Court exercised judicial restraint by refusing to transfer the investigation to the CBI and by not monitoring the investigation process, reiterating that it is not the function of the court to interfere with the investigation.
• Clarification on Defamation: The Court clarified that criminal defamation cannot be investigated through an FIR or an order under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, emphasizing that a complaint must be instituted by an aggrieved person.