Skip to main content
Sabrang
Sabrang
Freedom Politics

Republic TV has refused to furnish proof of my involvement: Sudha Bharadwaj

CJP 20 Aug 2018

In a second public statement after she filed a legal complaint against Republic TV, she has listed all the points put forth to her from the legal team representing Republic TV, which has gone further to accuse her of deliberately maligning Arnab Goswami.


Sudha Bharadwaj
 
Sudha Bharadwaj has fought against various fake encounters of Adivasis in the Chhattisgarh high court and made representations to the National Human Rights Commission on behalf of many activists. She is a visiting professor at National Law University, Delhi and national secretary of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties. As part of her work as a trade unionist, she became a lawyer in the year 2000 since then she has fought scores of cases of workers, farmers, Adivasis and poor people in the field of labour, land acquisition, forest rights and environmental rights.
 
On July 4, Republic TV accused her of being involved in an assassination attempt on the Prime Minister, called her an urban Naxal and was also accused of “having received money from Maoists. Various advocates, some of whom she knows as excellent human rights lawyers and others she doesn’t know at all, had some sort of Maoist link.”
 
In a second public statement after she filed a legal complaint against Republic TV for spreading fake news, she has listed all the points put forth to her from the legal team representing Republic TV, which has gone further to accuse her of deliberately maligning Arnab Goswami.
 
Full text of the statement:
 
“Why I do not want to appear on Republic TV”
 
I have received through my counsel a reply from Phoenix Legal on behalf of Republic TV dated 7th August to my Legal Notice dated 16th July 2018. Both my Notice and the Reply thereto have been annexed here.
 
1. First of all this reply claims that in my notice I “have reflected wanton prejudice against Mr Goswami with the intention to tarnish Mr Goswami’s reputation and selectively target him!!” If that isn’t a case of the pot calling the kettle black I don’t know what is!
 
2. This reply has not been accompanied by a copy of the “super exclusive” letter purportedly authored by me, which I had demanded a copy of. As you know I have categorically denied having anything whatsoever to do with such a letter.
 
3. The Republic TV has refused to reveal the source of this letter, which is claimed to be the result of “investigative journalism” by Mr Shawan Sen, claiming journalistic privileges. Normally such privileges are claimed in order to protect vulnerable sources. Definitely, police do not qualify as a vulnerable source.
 
4. The Republic TV has admitted that the reason the said letter was considered “undisputedly” to have been authored by me was 1) the fact that the signature line contained the name ‘Sudha’; 2) the letter made a mention of Jagdalpur Legal Aid Group, Bastar Solidarity Network and the names of some advocates with whom I am associated! Any person who had a grudge against me, whether belonging to a corporate house, or the Chhattisgarh police or Chhattisgarh government, would easily know both these public details, available by googling, and on that account could have easily fabricated/ concocted a letter “undisputedly” authored by me and forged a signature with my name. And this is what I believe has been done.
 
5. It is claimed by Republic TV that, “On 4th July 2018, before the broadcasts were aired, Mr Shawan Sen had contacted your client (i.e me) through telephone to seek her views in relation to the First Letter (letter purportedly authored by me). However, despite being afforded adequate opportunity to air her version, your client expressly refused on the telephone call to provide any comments or views in relation to the news report proposed to be aired by Republic TV, which is again reflective of a prejudice against our client (Republic TV).”
 
I will reiterate what I have said earlier in my interviews and which can easily be confirmed from call details. On 4th July I received a call from a Mumbai landline on my mobile. The person on the other end said he was speaking from Republic TV and had just begun to speak further when I replied, “Sorry I don’t speak to Republic TV” and put down the phone. I was under the impression that I was going to be asked to be a panelist on Republic TV and having seen the manner in which “debates” are conducted on that channel, chose not to associate with such a debate. If indeed I was made aware of what was being proposed to be aired through that call and chose to refuse to respond, the call ought to have been relayed in the programme.
 
The call was not repeated. Republic TV had my mobile number, an sms could have been sent to me informing me that a serious allegation was being levelled against me. That was not done. The programme could have been postponed till my reaction was obtained. That was also not done. I stand by my position that I was not given any opportunity to respond to the allegations made against me before the programme was aired.
 
6. Republic TV has said that in the Prime-Time broadcast at 9pm on 4th July 2018 my image was shown 13 times (thanks for counting!) with the caption “ALLEGEDLY WROTE LETTER”.  They have chosen to deliberately gloss over the other two earlier broadcasts. In these impugned broadcasts the transcript of what was spoken does not contain the word “allegedly” even once.  The programmes in fact keep referring to the letter as “indisputable”. The tone and tenor of the programmes as well as all statements made by the presenters when viewed as a whole communicate and portray that the baseless claims made are proven facts.
 
7. After literally shouting from the rooftops about my connections with Maoists and Kashmiri separatists, Phoenix Legal claims, “Our clients unequivocally state that the Broadcasts had not lowered the image of your client in the estimation of others in any manner whatsoever. The tone and tenor of the Broadcasts had not imputed any guilt or culpability upon your client. The Anchors in the Broadcasts had refrained from pronouncing any verdict of guilt or innocence against your client.”
 
So kind of you, dear Sirs, even I am a good enough criminal lawyer to know that you have no business pronouncing any verdict against me. The fact is that you have incited hatred against me, and put me into a situation where my life could be under threat from people who don’t know that you have no business pronouncing a verdict against me, more so when the same is premised on false and fabricated material. Recent events have confirmed that the apprehension of harm resulting from the hatred incited by this kind of journalism is no longer a mere apprehension, and persons are actually being subjected to violent attacks.
 
8. Finally, the Republic TV has given the following offer, “Your client will be afforded uninterrupted, unedited and uncensored 25 minutes slot for a program in which she can answer any questions put in the manner she deems fit, express her views and clarify her position. Our clients are also willing to accommodate such a slot at primetime (ie 9pm) on a mutually” convenient date.
 
To this, my clear response is that - the reply shows that Republic TV is already aware of my interviews given to “The Wire” and “Newsclick”, they have carefully studied the Public Statement issued by me. They have also been given a Legal Notice. If they indeed wish to be fair they are always free to read out this Public Statement/ Legal Notice and air my interviews given at The Wire and Newsclick. (And why only 25 minutes? When admittedly the 9 pm Prime Time slot is 120 minutes and you had aired 3 broadcasts in all.)
 
Republic TV has already conducted itself as vigilante Investigators. I see no reason to give them an opportunity to act as vigilante Public Prosecutors and interrogate me publicly about a document that I have nothing to do with.
 
As a lawyer, I believe in the Rule of Law and not in media trials. So, I prefer to continue going about my work and duties as a trade unionist, a lawyer and a teacher; serving people as best I can and as I have been doing for the past three decades. Let my love for my country and its citizens speak, not through words, but through my work.
 
Sudha Bharadwaj


Related Articles: 
Human rights lawyer sends legal notice to Arnab Goswami over ‘fake news’
Sudha Bharadwaj: I Will Continue My Work Regardless of What Mr. Goswami Says
NTUI supports Sudha Bharadwaj in her fight against Arnab and Republic TV
 

Republic TV has refused to furnish proof of my involvement: Sudha Bharadwaj

In a second public statement after she filed a legal complaint against Republic TV, she has listed all the points put forth to her from the legal team representing Republic TV, which has gone further to accuse her of deliberately maligning Arnab Goswami.


Sudha Bharadwaj
 
Sudha Bharadwaj has fought against various fake encounters of Adivasis in the Chhattisgarh high court and made representations to the National Human Rights Commission on behalf of many activists. She is a visiting professor at National Law University, Delhi and national secretary of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties. As part of her work as a trade unionist, she became a lawyer in the year 2000 since then she has fought scores of cases of workers, farmers, Adivasis and poor people in the field of labour, land acquisition, forest rights and environmental rights.
 
On July 4, Republic TV accused her of being involved in an assassination attempt on the Prime Minister, called her an urban Naxal and was also accused of “having received money from Maoists. Various advocates, some of whom she knows as excellent human rights lawyers and others she doesn’t know at all, had some sort of Maoist link.”
 
In a second public statement after she filed a legal complaint against Republic TV for spreading fake news, she has listed all the points put forth to her from the legal team representing Republic TV, which has gone further to accuse her of deliberately maligning Arnab Goswami.
 
Full text of the statement:
 
“Why I do not want to appear on Republic TV”
 
I have received through my counsel a reply from Phoenix Legal on behalf of Republic TV dated 7th August to my Legal Notice dated 16th July 2018. Both my Notice and the Reply thereto have been annexed here.
 
1. First of all this reply claims that in my notice I “have reflected wanton prejudice against Mr Goswami with the intention to tarnish Mr Goswami’s reputation and selectively target him!!” If that isn’t a case of the pot calling the kettle black I don’t know what is!
 
2. This reply has not been accompanied by a copy of the “super exclusive” letter purportedly authored by me, which I had demanded a copy of. As you know I have categorically denied having anything whatsoever to do with such a letter.
 
3. The Republic TV has refused to reveal the source of this letter, which is claimed to be the result of “investigative journalism” by Mr Shawan Sen, claiming journalistic privileges. Normally such privileges are claimed in order to protect vulnerable sources. Definitely, police do not qualify as a vulnerable source.
 
4. The Republic TV has admitted that the reason the said letter was considered “undisputedly” to have been authored by me was 1) the fact that the signature line contained the name ‘Sudha’; 2) the letter made a mention of Jagdalpur Legal Aid Group, Bastar Solidarity Network and the names of some advocates with whom I am associated! Any person who had a grudge against me, whether belonging to a corporate house, or the Chhattisgarh police or Chhattisgarh government, would easily know both these public details, available by googling, and on that account could have easily fabricated/ concocted a letter “undisputedly” authored by me and forged a signature with my name. And this is what I believe has been done.
 
5. It is claimed by Republic TV that, “On 4th July 2018, before the broadcasts were aired, Mr Shawan Sen had contacted your client (i.e me) through telephone to seek her views in relation to the First Letter (letter purportedly authored by me). However, despite being afforded adequate opportunity to air her version, your client expressly refused on the telephone call to provide any comments or views in relation to the news report proposed to be aired by Republic TV, which is again reflective of a prejudice against our client (Republic TV).”
 
I will reiterate what I have said earlier in my interviews and which can easily be confirmed from call details. On 4th July I received a call from a Mumbai landline on my mobile. The person on the other end said he was speaking from Republic TV and had just begun to speak further when I replied, “Sorry I don’t speak to Republic TV” and put down the phone. I was under the impression that I was going to be asked to be a panelist on Republic TV and having seen the manner in which “debates” are conducted on that channel, chose not to associate with such a debate. If indeed I was made aware of what was being proposed to be aired through that call and chose to refuse to respond, the call ought to have been relayed in the programme.
 
The call was not repeated. Republic TV had my mobile number, an sms could have been sent to me informing me that a serious allegation was being levelled against me. That was not done. The programme could have been postponed till my reaction was obtained. That was also not done. I stand by my position that I was not given any opportunity to respond to the allegations made against me before the programme was aired.
 
6. Republic TV has said that in the Prime-Time broadcast at 9pm on 4th July 2018 my image was shown 13 times (thanks for counting!) with the caption “ALLEGEDLY WROTE LETTER”.  They have chosen to deliberately gloss over the other two earlier broadcasts. In these impugned broadcasts the transcript of what was spoken does not contain the word “allegedly” even once.  The programmes in fact keep referring to the letter as “indisputable”. The tone and tenor of the programmes as well as all statements made by the presenters when viewed as a whole communicate and portray that the baseless claims made are proven facts.
 
7. After literally shouting from the rooftops about my connections with Maoists and Kashmiri separatists, Phoenix Legal claims, “Our clients unequivocally state that the Broadcasts had not lowered the image of your client in the estimation of others in any manner whatsoever. The tone and tenor of the Broadcasts had not imputed any guilt or culpability upon your client. The Anchors in the Broadcasts had refrained from pronouncing any verdict of guilt or innocence against your client.”
 
So kind of you, dear Sirs, even I am a good enough criminal lawyer to know that you have no business pronouncing any verdict against me. The fact is that you have incited hatred against me, and put me into a situation where my life could be under threat from people who don’t know that you have no business pronouncing a verdict against me, more so when the same is premised on false and fabricated material. Recent events have confirmed that the apprehension of harm resulting from the hatred incited by this kind of journalism is no longer a mere apprehension, and persons are actually being subjected to violent attacks.
 
8. Finally, the Republic TV has given the following offer, “Your client will be afforded uninterrupted, unedited and uncensored 25 minutes slot for a program in which she can answer any questions put in the manner she deems fit, express her views and clarify her position. Our clients are also willing to accommodate such a slot at primetime (ie 9pm) on a mutually” convenient date.
 
To this, my clear response is that - the reply shows that Republic TV is already aware of my interviews given to “The Wire” and “Newsclick”, they have carefully studied the Public Statement issued by me. They have also been given a Legal Notice. If they indeed wish to be fair they are always free to read out this Public Statement/ Legal Notice and air my interviews given at The Wire and Newsclick. (And why only 25 minutes? When admittedly the 9 pm Prime Time slot is 120 minutes and you had aired 3 broadcasts in all.)
 
Republic TV has already conducted itself as vigilante Investigators. I see no reason to give them an opportunity to act as vigilante Public Prosecutors and interrogate me publicly about a document that I have nothing to do with.
 
As a lawyer, I believe in the Rule of Law and not in media trials. So, I prefer to continue going about my work and duties as a trade unionist, a lawyer and a teacher; serving people as best I can and as I have been doing for the past three decades. Let my love for my country and its citizens speak, not through words, but through my work.
 
Sudha Bharadwaj


Related Articles: 
Human rights lawyer sends legal notice to Arnab Goswami over ‘fake news’
Sudha Bharadwaj: I Will Continue My Work Regardless of What Mr. Goswami Says
NTUI supports Sudha Bharadwaj in her fight against Arnab and Republic TV
 

Related Articles

Politics

In shocking move, Bengal decides to build detention camps

Remember when Mamata Banerjee had said, ‘I’m your paharadar, nobody can displace you from Bengal’? Well, her true intentions are now under the scanner as her government is in the process of building two detention camps, apparently for accommodating just 110 under trial foreign nationals.

Politics

In shocking move, Bengal decides to build detention camps

Remember when Mamata Banerjee had said, ‘I’m your paharadar, nobody can displace you from Bengal’? Well, her true intentions are now under the scanner as her government is in the process of building two detention camps, apparently for accommodating just 110 under trial foreign nationals.


Monday

18

Nov

Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi

Saturday

30

Nov

Jana Natya Manch, New Delhi

Thursday

07

Nov

Thrissur, Kerala

Theme

Ayodhya 1992

Ayodhya 1992

Excerpts from the Report of the Liberhan Ayodhya Commission of Inquiry
babri

How the Babri Masjid was demolished

Citizens Tribunal on Ayodhya
babri

Fact and Faith

Allahabad High Court Judgement in Babri Demolition Case, 2010
kashmir

How Green Is My Valley

The killing of innocent Hindus by Pakistan-trained mercenaries in J and K is one more bid to convert the Kashmiriyat issue into a Hindu-Muslim problem

Campaigns

Monday

18

Nov

Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi

Saturday

30

Nov

Jana Natya Manch, New Delhi

Thursday

07

Nov

12 am onwards

Vibgyor Film Collective

Thrissur, Kerala

Videos

Communalism

What is the Ram Temple REALLY about?

For the many who do not know what the original Ram Temple movement is and the many who may have forgotten the mayhem, eminent activist and journalist Teesta Setalvad presents a ready reckoner on what the Ram Temple movement really is about and why has it been so conveniently resurrected, twenty six years later in 2018.

Communalism

What is the Ram Temple REALLY about?

For the many who do not know what the original Ram Temple movement is and the many who may have forgotten the mayhem, eminent activist and journalist Teesta Setalvad presents a ready reckoner on what the Ram Temple movement really is about and why has it been so conveniently resurrected, twenty six years later in 2018.

Analysis

Ayodhya 1992

Ayodhya 1992

Excerpts from the Report of the Liberhan Ayodhya Commission of Inquiry
babri

How the Babri Masjid was demolished

Citizens Tribunal on Ayodhya
babri

Fact and Faith

Allahabad High Court Judgement in Babri Demolition Case, 2010
kashmir

How Green Is My Valley

The killing of innocent Hindus by Pakistan-trained mercenaries in J and K is one more bid to convert the Kashmiriyat issue into a Hindu-Muslim problem

Archives