Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India & Ors, AIR 2020 SC 2386

Coram: J. D.Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah.

Facts Of The Case
The Petitioner is the Editor-in-Chief of the English television news channel Republic TV and the Managing Director of ARG Outlier Media Asianet News Private Limited, which owns and operates a Hindi television news channel named 'R Bharat'. The Petitioner anchors news shows on both channels. A broadcast that took place on Republic TV on 16 April 2020, followed by another on R Bharat on 21 April 2020, led to the lodging of multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) and criminal complaints against the Petitioner in various states across India.

The FIRs and complaints pertained to the broadcasts on Republic TV and R Bharat concerning an incident in Gadchinchle village of Palghar district, Maharashtra, where three persons, including two sadhus, were brutally killed by a mob, allegedly in the presence of police and forest guard personnel. The incident was widely reported in both print and electronic media.

In his news show titled "Poochta Hai Bharat", the Petitioner claimed to have raised issues regarding the allegedly tardy investigation of the incident, inconsistent statements by the authorities and administration, and the silence of the State Government on the matter. The Petitioner further claimed that following the broadcast, a "well-coordinated, widespread, vindictive, and malicious campaign" was launched against him by the Indian National Congress (INC) and its affiliates. This was followed by an alleged social media campaign calling for his arrest, using the hashtag: #ArrestAntiIndiaArnab.

The Petitioner also contended that all the complaints and FIRs were lodged in states governed by coalitions involving the INC, and that the law enforcement machinery was being set in motion with an ulterior motive. The Petitioner further referred to an incident in which his car was allegedly confronted by two individuals on a motorcycle who identified themselves as members of the INC.

Issues:

1. Whether Arnab Goswami, who stands accused, can get the case investigated by an authority of his choice.
2. Whether the Courts can Consolidate the various similar FIRs under Article 32.
3. Whether the statements made by Arnab Goswami on live TV fall under the protective ambit of Article 19(1)(a) or can be restricted as per the provisions under Article 19(2).

Observation and Decision
The Supreme Court observed that 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 complaints bearing the same foundation, has a stifling effect on the exercise of his freedom. The court thus held that the right of a journalist under Article 19(1)(a) is no higher than the right of the citizen to speak and express, but the society must never forget that one cannot exist without the other and free citizens cannot exist when the news media is chained to adhere to one position.

Also Read:

• Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India 2020 14 SCC 12 - IRAC Analysis