ARNAB RANJAN GOSWAMI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2020] 8 S.C.R. 222 · Decided: 19-05-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 17 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
222
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 8 S.C.R.
ARNAB RANJAN GOSWAMI
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 130 of 2020)
MAY 19, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Constitution of India:
Arts. 19(1)(a), 19(2) and 32 – Writ Petition – Seeking quashing
of various FIRs filed under the provisions of ss. 153, 153A, 153B,
295A, 298, 500, 504 and 506 IPC against a media journalist –
Held: All the FIRs or complaints have been lodged in diverse
jurisdictions arising out of same cause of action i.e. broadcast of a
programme – Journalistic freedom is protected by Art. 19(1)(a) –
The right of speech and expression of a journalist u/Art. 19(1)(a) is
no higher than such right of a citizen – It is amenable to restriction
u/Art. 19(2) – Petitioner is not immune from investigation in FIR –
However, the reasonable restriction on fundamental right must
comport with the proportionality standard i.e. the measure adopted
must be the least restrictive to effectively achieve the legitimate aim
– Subjecting an individual to numerous proceedings in different
jurisdictions on the basis of same cause of action cannot be said to
be least restrictive – Therefore, except one FIR at Mumbai, all other
FIRs which are in respect of the same incident are quashed as they
constitute a clear abuse of process of law – The writ petition is not
entertained in respect of relief of quashing the FIR at Mumbai as
efficacious remedies are available under Cr. P.C. including the
remedy before High Court u/s. 482 Cr. P.C.
Investigation:
Transfer of investigation – From local police to CBI – Held:
Transfer of investigation to CBI is not a matter of routine – It is an
‘extraordinary power’ to be used ‘sparingly’ and ‘in exceptional
circumstances’ – Mere allegations against police do not constitute
a sufficient basis for transfer – It must be ‘imperative’ to retain
public confidence in the impartial working of the State agencies –
Allegation by the person under investigation regarding mode,
[2020] 8 S.C.R. 222
222
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
223
manner and line of interrogation and unsubstantiated allegation of
a conflict of interest against police conducting investigation, cannot
be the basis to transfer the investigation.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 199 – Prosecution for defamation – Held: In respect of
defamation neither can an FIR be filed nor can a direction be issued
u/s. 156 (3) Cr. P.C. – It is only a complaint which can be instituted
by the aggrieved person.
Disposing of Writ Petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The fundamental basis on which the
jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 32 is
the filing of multiple FIRs and complaints in various States arising
from the same cause of action. All the FIRs or complaints which
have been lodged in diverse jurisdictions arise out of one and
the same incident - the broadcast by the petitioner on 21 April
2020 on R Bharat. The broadcast is the foundation of the
allegation that offences have been committed under the provisions
of Sections 153, 153A, 153B, 295A, 298, 500, 504 and 506 of the
IPC. The several complaints are worded in identical terms and
leave no manner of doubt that an identity of cause of action
underlies the allegations leveled against the petitioner on the
basis of the programme which was broadcast on 21 April 2020.
Moreover, the language, content and sequencing of paragraphs
and their numbering is identical. [Paras 28 and 31][252-C; 256-
A-C]
1.2 Article 32 of the Constitution constitutes a recognition
of the constitutional duty entrusted to this Court to protect the
fundamental rights of citizens. The exercise of journalistic freedom
lies at the core of speech and expression protected by Article
19(1)(a). The petitioner is a media journalist. The airing of views
on television shows which he hosts is in the exercise of his
fundamental right to speech and expression under Article
19(1)(a). Country’s freedoms will rest safe as long as journalists
can speak to power without being chilled by a threat of reprisal.
The exercise of that fundamental right is not absolute and is
answerable to the legal regime enacted with reference to the
ARNAB RANJAN GOSWAMI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
224
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 8 S.C.R.
provisions of Article 19(2). But to allow a journalist to be subjected
to multiple complaints and to the pursuit of remedies traversing
multiple States and jurisdictions when faced with successive FIRs
and complain

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.