Supreme Court grants three week protection to Arnab Goswami against coercive action

Republic TV Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami had moved the Supreme Court after a number of FIRs were lodged against him in various states of the country. FIRs were filed in the states of Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Telangana, Jharkand and Jammu & Kashmir.

The FIRs were filed against him across the country for the alleged inflammatory statements he made on his show on Republic TV against Congress President Sonia Gandhi. He filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking that no coercive action be taken against him on the basis of those FIRs.

The petition filed by Goswami had the Union of India, State of Maharashtra, Chattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Jammu Kashmir and Telangana as Respondents.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing on behalf of Arnab Goswami submitted that Goswami has asserted his rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and urged that the programme presented an analysis of an incident of mob lynching which took place at Palghar on 16 April 2020 in the course of which two persons were killed in the presence of personnel belonging to the police and the forest department.

It was contended that the FIRs were launched at the behest of the Indian National Congress with the intention to harass and intimidate Goswami for conducting the show and trying to bring the truth before the public.

Further, it was also contended that there was an attack by two individuals on Goswami and his spouse in the mid-night while they were returning home from the studio in Mumbai. Goswami thus sought protection from similar attacks for himself and his family members in the future that might emanate as he apprehended a threat to his safety and safety of his business establishment.

The Supreme Court granted protection for three weeks to Goswami and held that he would be at liberty to move an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and to pursue such remedies as are available in accordance with law.

The Supreme Court Order further read that, “In addition to the personal security provided to the petitioner, if a request is made by the petitioner to the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai for providing adequate security at the residence of the petitioner or at the studio of Republic TV in Mumbai, such a request shall be expeditiously considered and, based on the threat perception, police protection shall be provided, if considered appropriate and for the period during which the threat perception continues.”

The case was heard by Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah.

View Full Judgement