Case Title: Arnab Ranjan Goswami V. Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court noted in its ruling on Arnab Goswami's writ petition that India's liberties will remain secure as long as journalists are allowed to criticise the government without fear of retaliation.
Arnab requested the dismissal of all the complaints and FIRs that had been filed against him in several States and Union Territories.
The judgment's author, Justice DY Chandrachud, stated that it is stifling to a journalist's exercise of freedom to subject him to multiple complaints and the pursuit of remedies spanning multiple States and jurisdictions when faced with FIRs and complaints that follow each other and have the same basis. The Court declared:
"This will effectively destroy the freedom of the citizen to know of the affairs of governance in the nation and the right of the journalist to ensure an informed society. Our decisions hold 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 we must as a society never forget that one cannot exist without the other. Free citizens cannot exist when the news media is chained to adhere to one position."
An individual being subjected to multiple proceedings arising in various jurisdictions on the basis of the same cause of action cannot be accepted as the least restrictive and effective method of achieving the legitimate state goal in prosecuting crime, the bench, which also included Justice MR Shah, said in reference to TT Antony v. State of Kerala.
Based on TT Antony v. State of Kerela, the Court noted that "a fresh investigation or a second FIR on the basis of the same or connected cognisable offence would constitute an ‘abuse of the statutory power of investigation’ and maybe a fit case for the exercise of power under Section 482 of the CrPC or Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution."
Relying upon Chirra Shivraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Chirag M Pathak v. Dollyben Kantilal Patel, the Court stated that every justifiable limitation on basic rights must adhere to the proportionality criteria, one of which is that the measure implemented must be the least restrictive measure to successfully further the lawful state goal.
"Subjecting an individual to numerous proceedings arising in different jurisdictions on the basis of the same cause of action cannot be accepted as the least restrictive and effective method of achieving the legitimate state aim in prosecuting crime", the bench said.
The petitioner's broadcast on R Bharat in April 2020, was the basis for all of the FIRs or complaints that have been filed in various jurisdictions, according to the court. The claim that violations of Sections 153, 153A, 153B, 295A, 298, 500, and 506 of the IPC have been committed is based on the broadcast.
The court further noted that Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal, representing the State of Maharashtra, "reasonably urged" that the inquiry into the FIR filed in Mumbai may continue while all other FIRs and complaints filed in various State jurisdictions might be quashed. The Court made it clear that the dismissal of these numerous FIRs does not constitute an opinion on the validity of the FIR, which is being investigated by the Mumbai police station on NM Joshi Marg.
The Court, however, turned down the requests to throw out the FIR and the alternative remedy of transferring the investigation to the CBI.