2020 Supreme(SC) 372

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, M.R. Shah, JJ.
Arnab Ranjan Goswami – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 130 of 2020 with Writ Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 11189 of 2020
Decided on : 19-05-2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) India’s freedoms will rest safe as long as journalists can speak truth to power without being chilled by a threat of reprisal.
(2) There is a clear distinction between maintainability of a petition and whether it should be entertained.
(3) An accused person does not have a choice in regard to mode or manner in which investigation should be carried out or in regard to investigating agency.
(4) Transfer of an investigation to CBI is not a matter of routine.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code 1860 – Sections 153, 153-A, 153-B,295-A, 298, 500, 504(2), 506, 120-B and 117 – Constitution of India – Article 19(1)(a) – Defamation – Airing of defamatory news item on T.V. Channel in relation to an incident of mob lynching of Hindu Monks – Petitioner denies that he has propagated views of a communal nature in course of news broadcasts which gave rise to institution of numerous complaints – Reliefs which have been sought are quashing all complaints and FIRs lodged against petitioner in multiple States and Union Territories – FIRs which were filed in various states by persons professing allegiance to INC appear, prima facie, to be reproductions of same language and content – Fundamental basis on which jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 32 is filing of multiple FIRs and complaints in various States arising from same cause of action – There can be no second FIR where information concerns same cognizable offence alleged in first FIR or same occurrence or incident which gives rise to one or more cognizable offences – Investigation covers within its ambit not just alleged cognizable offence, but also any other connected offences that may be found to have been committed – Once an FIR postulated by provisions of Section 154 has been recorded, any information received after commencement of investigation cannot form basis of a second FIR as doing so would fail to comport with scheme of Cr.P.C. – There is need to strike a just balance between fundamental rights of citizens under Articles 19 and 21 and expansive power of police to investigate a cognizable offence – Relevant enquiry is whether two or more FIRs relate to same incident or relate to incidents which form part of same transactions – If Court were to conclude in affirmative, subsequent FIRs are liable to be quashed – However, where subsequent FIR relates to different incidents or crimes or is in form of a counter-claim, investigation may proceed – In present case, all FIRs or complaints which have been lodged in diverse jurisdictions arise out of one and same incident – Broadcast is foundation of allegation that offences have been committed under provisions of Sections 153, 153A, 153B, 295A, 298, 500, 504 and 506 of IPC – They are worded in identical terms. (Paras 7, 26, 28, 29, 30 and 31)

(B) Constitution of India – Article 19(1)(a) Indian Penal Code 1860 – Sections 153, 153-A, 153-B,295-A, 298, 500, 504(2), 506, 120-B and 117 – Defamation – Initiation of criminal prosecution for airing of defamatory news item on T.V. Channel in relation to an incident of mob lynching of Hindu Monks – Article 32 of Constitution constitutes a recognition of constitutional duty entrusted to this Court to protect fundamental rights of citizens – Exercise of journalistic freedom lies at core of speech and expression protected by Article 19(1)(a) – Petitioner is a media journalist – Airing of views on television shows which he hosts is in exercise of his fundamental right to speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) – India’s freedoms will rest safe as long as journalists can speak truth to power without being chilled by a threat of reprisal – Exercise of that fundamental right is not absolute and is answerable to legal regime enacted with reference to provisions of Article 19(2) – But to allow a journalist to be subjected to multiple complaints and to pursuit of remedies traversing multiple states and jurisdictions when faced with successive FIRs and complaints bearing same foundation has a stifling effect on exercise of that freedom – This will effectively destroy freedom of citizen to know of affairs of governance in nation and right of journalist to ensure an informed society – Right of a journalist under Article 19(1)(a) is no higher than right of citizen to speak and express – But we must as a society never forget that one cannot exist without other. Free citizens cannot exist when news media is chained to adhere to one position – Any reasonable restriction on fundamental rights must comport with proportionality standard, of which one component is that measure adopted must be least restrictive measure to effectively achieve legitimate state aim – Subjecting an individual to numerous proceedings arising in different jurisdictions on the basis of same cause of action cannot be accepted as least restrictive and effective method of achieving legitimate state aim in prosecuting crime – Manner in which petitioner has been subjected to numerous FIRs in several States, besides Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of identical allegations arising out of same television show would leave no manner of doubt that intervention of this Court is necessary to protect rights of petitioner as a citizen and as a journalist to fair treatment (guaranteed by Article 14) and liberty to conduct an independent portrayal of views – In such a situation to require petitioner to approach respective High Courts having jurisdiction for quashing would result into a multiplicity of proceedings and unnecessary harassment to petitioner, who is a journalist – However, petitioner now seeks to preempt an investigation by Mumbai police – Basis on which petitioner seeks to achieve this is untenable – An accused person does not have a choice in regard to mode or manner in which investigation should be carried out or in regard to investigating agency – Line of interrogation either of petitioner or of CFO cannot be controlled or dictated by persons under investigation/interrogation – Courts must refrain from passing comments on an ongoing investigation to extend to investigating agencies requisite liberty and protection in conducting a fair, transparent and just investigation – Investigating agency is entitled to determine nature of questions and period of questioning – Interview given by complainant to a representative of R Bharat does not furnish a valid basis in law for an inference that investigation is tainted or as warranting a transfer of investigation to CBI – No case has been established for transfer of investigation – Whether allegations contained in the FIR do or do not make out any offence as alleged will not be decided in pursuance of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32, to quash FIR – Petitioner must be relegated to pursuit of remedies available under Cr.P.C. – Petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy available before High Court – Filing of multiple FIRs arising out of same telecast of show hosted by petitioner is an abuse of process and impermissible – Quashing of those FIRs would not amount to expression of any opinion by this Court on merits of FIR which is being investigated by NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai. (Paras 32, 33, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 49, 50 and 51)

(C) Criminal Procedure Code 1973 – Section 173 – Crime investigation – Transfer of an investigation to CBI is not a matter of routine – This is an extraordinary power to be used sparingly and in exceptional circumstances – One factor that courts may consider is that such transfer is imperative to retain public confidence in impartial working of State Agencies – Mere allegations against Police do not constitute a sufficient basis to transfer investigation – Accused does not have a say in matter of appointment of investigating agency – Displeasure of an accused person about manner in which investigation proceeds or an unsubstantiated allegation (as in present case) of a conflict of interest against police conducting investigation must not derail legitimate course of law and warrant invocation of extraordinary power of this Court to transfer an investigation to CBI – Courts assume extraordinary jurisdiction to transfer an investigation in exceptional situations to ensure that sanctity of administration of criminal justice is preserved – While no inflexible guidelines are laid down, notion that such a transfer is an “extraordinary power” to be used “sparingly” and “in exceptional circumstances” comports with idea that routine transfers would belie not just public confidence in normal course of law but also render meaningless extraordinary situations that warrant exercise of power to transfer investigation. (Paras 36, 37, 38 and 44)

Facts of the Case:

Petitioner is the Editor-in-Chief of an English television news channel, Republic TV. He is also the Managing Director of ARG Outlier Media Asianet News Private Limited which owns and operates a Hindi television news channel by the name of R Bharat. The petitioner anchors news shows on both channels. genesis of the FIRs and complaints originates in the broadcasts on Republic TV on 16 April 2020 and R Bharat on 21 April 2020 in relation to an incident which took place in Gadchinchle village of Palghar district in Maharashtra. During the course of the incident which took place on 16 April 2020, three persons including two sadhus were brutally killed by a mob, allegedly in the presence of the police and forest guard personnel. The incident was widely reported in the print and electronic media. The petition states that a video recording of the incident is available in the public domain. In his news show titled “Poochta hai Bharat” on 21 April 2020 on R Bharat, the petitioner claims to have raised issues in relation to the allegedly tardy investigation of the incident.

Findings of the Court:

Whether the allegations contained in the FIR do or do not make out any offence as alleged will not be decided in pursuance of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32, to quash the FIR. The petitioner must be relegated to the pursuit of the remedies available under the Cr.P.C. Petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy available before the High Court.

Result : Writ Petition dismissed.