Author Details:-

NAIK MADIHA, TY.B.A. LL.B. (Hons.), Asmita College of Law, Mumbai University

INTRODUCTION: The case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs Union of India, AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 2386, AIRONLINE 2020 SC 546, marks an important moment in India’s judicial discourse as it interplay’s between freedom of expression, journalistic responsibilities, and misuse of the criminal justice system. Arnab Goswami, a prominent journalist, faced a tons of FIRs across multiple states following contentious broadcasts on his news channels. These broadcasts revolved around the Palghar mob lynching incident, which led to severe public and political scrutiny. This Supreme Court judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hemant Gupta, and Justice Ajay Rastogi, addressed the limits of criminal prosecution and emphasized safeguarding constitutional rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 while ensuring accountability under the law.

CASE BACKGROUND: Arnab Ranjan Goswami, Editor-in-Chief of Republic TV, is a prominent media figure known for his outspoken journalism. On April 16, 2020, three individuals, including two Hindu monks, were lynched by a mob in Palghar, Maharashtra. The shocking incident received extensive media coverage. Subsequently, on April 21, 2020, Goswami hosted a show on the incident, raising critical questions about the role of the Maharashtra government and local authorities in addressing the mob violence. His broadcast alleged a lack of action and transparency by the state government, then led by an alliance of Shiv Sena, Congress, and the Nationalist Congress Party.

Following these broadcasts, several complaints were filed against Goswami by members and supporters of the Indian National Congress (INC), accusing him of:

1. Promoting communal disharmony by allegedly attributing religious motives to the incident.
2. Defaming Sonia Gandhi, the INC President, by implying her tacit complicity in the government’s inaction.
3. Making inflammatory remarks likely to incite public unrest.

The First Information Report (FIR) was filed in Nagpur (No. 238 of 2020) which became the focal point, alongside several other FIRs and complaints registered in different states, including Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh. These FIRs invoked provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) such as Sections 153 (provocation with intent to cause riots), 295A (deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings), and 500 (defamation), among others. Claiming these complaints were politically motivated, Goswami filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. He argued that the multiple FIRs constituted harassment and sought their quashing, citing protection under Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. He also requested a transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), alleging bias on the part of the Maharashtra police.

KEY ISSUES: The case raised significant legal and constitutional issues, including:

1. Multiplicity of FIRs and Abuse of Process.
2. Journalistic Freedom and Accountability.
3. Bias and Fair Investigation.
4. Personal Liberty vs Public Interest.

COURT’S JUDGMENT:

Quashing Multiple FIRs: The Supreme Court quashed all FIRs and complaints filed in various states except one registered in Nagpur, which was transferred to the NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai. The Court emphasized that the same cause of action cannot give rise to multiple FIRs, as established in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 2637, 2001. Repeated FIRs on identical facts were deemed an abuse of process.

Journalistic Freedom and Public Debate: The Court upheld the importance of journalistic freedom in a democratic society, noting that Goswami’s broadcasts fell within the ambit of Article 19(1)(a). However, it clarified that this freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), such as maintaining public order and preventing defamation.

Investigation to Continue in One FIR: While quashing the additional FIRs, the Court allowed the investigation to proceed for the Nagpur FIR, recognizing the police’s right to investigate alleged offenses under the law.

Refusal to Transfer to CBI: The Court declined to transfer the investigation to the CBI, finding no substantial evidence of bias or mala fide intent by the Maharashtra police. It reiterated that transferring investigations is an extraordinary remedy reserved for rare cases of gross injustice.

Personal Liberty Safeguarded: Recognizing the chilling effect that harassment through multiple FIRs could have on journalists, the Court protected Goswami from coercive action arising from the complaints, ensuring his liberty while allowing the investigation to proceed.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS: The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case comprehensively addressed the issue of multiple FIRs, reaffirming that such practices are impermissible under Indian criminal law. Relying on the precedent established in ‘T.T. Antony, Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash’ (2004) AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 4320, the Court held that subsequent FIRs based on the same offense or incident constitute harassment and abuse of process. This ruling emphasized the importance of procedural fairness, preventing misuse of the legal system against individuals critical of those in power. Furthermore, the judgment balanced the right to free speech with the need for accountability, highlighting that journalists play a vital role in fostering public debate but must operate within the boundaries set by Article 19(2) to avoid defamation or incitement to disorder. By refusing to transfer the investigation to the CBI, the Court upheld the principle of judicial restraint, affirming the need to trust local law enforcement unless there is clear evidence of bias or mala fide intent. Importantly, the Court recognized the “chilling effect” of harassment through multiple legal proceedings on journalistic freedom and safeguarded Goswami’s constitutional rights under Article 21 by shielding him from coercive action while permitting a legitimate investigation to proceed. By citing precedents like ‘T.T. Antony, Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash’ (2004) AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 4320, and ‘Babubhai v. State of Gujarat’ (2010) 2010 AIR SCW 5126, the judgment provided legal clarity and reinforced the importance of upholding individual liberty, ensuring media freedom, and maintaining ethical journalism.

CONCLUSION: The Supreme Court’s judgment in ‘Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs Union of India’ exemplifies a balanced approach to protecting constitutional rights while upholding the rule of law. By quashing multiple FIRs and allowing a single investigation to proceed, the Court safeguarded journalistic freedom and prevented harassment through legal overreach. This case underscores the judiciary’s role as a protector of fundamental rights, particularly in politically charged scenarios. It sends a strong message that freedom of speech and expression, a cornerstone of democracy, cannot be stifled through misuse of the legal system. Simultaneously, it holds journalists accountable for adhering to the ethical boundaries set by the Constitution. While the judgment strengthens protections for media professionals, it also reaffirms the need for journalists to act responsibly and avoid statements that could incite communal tension or defame individuals. The case is a milestone in safeguarding media independence and provides a roadmap for addressing similar conflicts between free speech and legal accountability in the future.