The IIT Bombay is earning flak for inviting anchors of Republic TV and Zee TV as expert speakers to its E-Summit 2022. The IT cell of the premier institute has been tweeting out the line up and the registration to the E-Summit for sometime now.

Next in Media & Entertainment Conclave at E-Summit 22, we have Mr. Arnab Goswami, Editor-in-chief of the Republic Media Network. Mr. Goswami is India’s leading TV anchor, who in 4 years has turned a startup into India’s leading news entity.

Register now: https://t.co/PIAD3ZCwe9 pic.twitter.com/pEXHDIH8p4

— E-Cell, IIT Bombay (@ecell_iitb) January 29, 2022

It will offer a place of honour at its Media & Entertainment Conclave at E-Summit 22, to Arnab Goswami, Editor-in-chief of the Republic Media Network. It hailed Goswami as “India’s leading TV anchor, who in 4 years has turned a startup into India’s leading news entity.” Sharing the stage with the controversial TV anchor is Sudhir Chaudhary is the Editor-in-Chief and CEO of Zee News who is hailed as the host of “the world’s most-watched prime-time news show- DNA on Zee News” by IIT’s e-cell.

Presenting the first speaker in Media Conclave, Mr. Sudhir Chaudhary. @sudhirchaudhary is the Editor-in-Chief and CEO of Zee News and hosts the world’s most-watched prime-time news show- DNA on Zee News.

Register now at: https://t.co/PIAD3ZTzg9 pic.twitter.com/1SGwVoAwux

— E-Cell, IIT Bombay (@ecell_iitb) January 28, 2022

However, as the two men are known for a particular style of anchoring and ‘journalism’, IIT alumni have raised concerns about their inclusion at the event by their alma mater. They have written to the Director, IITB, as well as other officials including the E-cell coordinator that as alumni and well-wishers they are surprised that these men have been invited as guests, as they are “TV personalities who represent the very opposite of the inclusive spirit of our institution and that of our country.” The letter highlights how the channel led by “one of the invitees” allegedly “spread hate and misinformation, causing the society to be more polarized” and that “the other anchor stands accused in the TRP scam.”

The alumni write that the “list of such transgressions and misdemeanors is too long to be repeated” in the letter and urge the organisers of this event must ask themselves these questions:

1. What role models will these personalities, who represent the forces of hate and bigotry, serve for our youth?
2. What message is IIT Bombay conveying to the world, which respects it for being the leadership factory of the tech world? And to future employers of these students?

IIT Bombay has been facing online criticism as soon as it disclosed its invite to Arnab Goswami of Republic TV and Sudhir Chaudhary of Zee News.  

????? @iitbombay https://t.co/Zf8jykvJeI

— Swara Bhasker (@ReallySwara) January 30, 2022

The alumni also ask that the organisers “reflect and rescind the invitations to these personalities” the letter has been signed by “Friends of IIT Bombay”, and alumni 

Dr Venkatesh Sundaram, PhD (1986), Girish Bhave (1984), Chandru Chawla (1987), Praveen Gill (2002), and Nikhil Jaiswal (2020).

Related:

CJP campaign against hate crimes grew stronger in 2021
Delhi court issues notice to Arnab Goswami for PFI ‘sting operation’
UAE Princess pushes for Sudheer Chaudhary’s name to be dropped from Abu Dhabi event
Republic TV, two others accused of TRP fraud
Delhi High Court tells Arnab Goswami to calm down and stop his media trials
Arnab Goswami in hot water again: Widow of interior designer seeks justice in 2018 suicide abetment case
Maha gov’t moves SC accusing Arnab Goswami of ‘browbeating’ police
Republic TV making TRP scam a “media spectacle”: Mumbai Police to SC

The post IIT Bombay E-Summit 2022 faces flak for inviting Arnab Goswami and Sudhir Chaudhary as speakers appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gagandeep Jindal at South East Saket District Court has issued summons upon defendant Republic TV’s editor, Arnab Goswami, in a defamation civil suit filed by Popular Front of India (PFI) PR Director Dr. M. Shamoon.

As per some media reports, Dr. Shamoon has alleged that Republic TV, as a sting operation, published doctored video footage whereby the former is said to have promoted violent protests and the use of criminal force against the state. He further alleged that the video had led to irreparable damage to him personally as well as the nation at large, as the contents of the fabricated video had reached a worldwide audience.

According to a report in Newslaundry, the plaintiff argued, “If the defendant (Arnab Goswami) were not in nasty intention, they could have aired the complete dialogue made between the plaintiff and the so-called sting operator. The defendant jointly acted against public morality in this incident. It is an attempt to make somebody as criminal that he would not have committed at all. It is against the public morality and decency and hence falls within the purview of Article 19 (2).”

Dr Shamoom’s suit also states, “Since the contents of the fabricated video has reached worldwide, a vast number of friends and colleagues of the plaintiff called him and expressed their dissatisfaction towards the plaintiff against the filthy contents of the video, which was never expressed by the plaintiff really. The image and status of the plaintiff has been blatantly diminished among them,” reported LiveLaw.

He has therefore sought a mandatory injunction, seeking removal of the aforesaid defamatory video from their channel and other social media platforms. Judge Gagandeep Jindal said, “No prejudice is caused to the defendants, if the said application is allowed. Application under Order VI Rule 17 r/w 151 CPC is allowed.”

The channel’s chief, Arnab Goswami and others have been directed to appear before the court on May 27, 2021.

The order may be read here:

Related:

Arnabgate: Republic TV sends legal notice to Indian Express
Republic TV making TRP scam a “media spectacle”: Mumbai Police to SC

The post Delhi court issues notice to Arnab Goswami for PFI ‘sting operation’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Recently, nearly 500 pages of transcripts of what are allegedly text messages shared between Republic TV’s Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami, and Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC)’s former chief Executive Officer Partho Dasgupta, were leaked.

The leaked pages are allegedly a part of a 3,000-word supplementary charge-sheet filed by the Maharashtra Police against Goswami and his co-accused in a case of alleged tampering of Television Rating Points (TRP). They not only allegedly reveal Goswami’s proximity to top government officials and influence in those circles, but also appear to suggest that this proximity might have led Goswami to have access to top secret information.

The Balakot Bombshell

The excerpts dated February 23, 2019, show Goswami informing Dasgupta at around 10:31 PM that “something big will happen.” To this Dasgupta responded a little later in the chat at around 10:36 PM asking, “Dawood?” Goswami then clarifies, “No, sir. Pakistan. Something major will be done this time.” It is noteworthy that this was three days before the Balakot airstrikes.

Here’s what follows next:

Dasgupta: “Good.”

Dasgupta: “It’s good for big man in this season.”

Dasgupta: “He will sweep polls then.”

Dasgupta: “Strike? Or bigger”

Arnab Goswami: “Bigger than a normal strike. And also on the same time something major on Kashmir. On Pakistan the government is confident of striking in a way that people will be elated. Exact words used.”

It is this last part where Goswami says, “Exact words used” that suggests someone in the know of the impending strike. Speaking exclusively to SabrangIndia, Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat, former Chief of the Naval Staff, a decorated war veteran, and winner of the Param Vishisht Seva Medal (PVSM), and Ati Vishisht Seva Medal (AVSM), explains, “Any aspect of military operations planned or underway has the highest security classification. For Service personnel it is covered under provisions of the Army, Navy and Airforce Acts 1957 (Statutory) and also, the Articles of War which may attract the penalty of Death.” Admiral Bhagwat further explains, “The core of Operations Plans is WHAT, WHERE, WHEN and HOW. Of the above WHERE, WHEN and HOW are the most important.”

The circle of people who have all operational information is extremely tight and prior information is only shared on a need-to-know basis only with people directly involved with the operation. Admiral Bhagwat, was once the Chief of the Naval Staff, and thus knows how tightly operational secrecy is guarded. He explains, “Chiefs of Staff of our Armed Forces and their immediate Ops Staff do not as a rule share the WHERE , WHEN and HOW components of Operational Plans with even the highest Civilian authority of the Government, even in a War Room briefing, except in general terms and if pressed by the Prime Minister do so in general terms avoiding specifics.”

Therefore, the current matter of sharing of sensitive information has at least two players; a high-ranking defense or government official who was the GIVER of the information and Arnab Goswami, the editor-in-chief of a television news channel who was the RECEIVER of the information.

As Admiral Bhagwat explains, “Firstly the GIVER of the information has to have the express authorisation of the Chief of Air Staff or the Chief himself. The RECEIVER of the information is clearly not a person authorised to receive such information no matter at which level of the Govt he was briefed, because that Civilian official too is grievously violating the Law and putting Ops in jeopardy seriously risking lives.”

Thus, the concerns raised about national security are legitimate. “There is no question that this particular PRE ‘D’ Day and Pre-H Hour briefing to a civilian journalist by either a military or Civilian authority is in the most serious category of violation of national security, and as is clearly committed by those in the highest echelons of the Government and the Military, must attract the highest punishment as they are the very upholders of the Laws of the Land in force,” says Admiral Bhagwat, adding, “Passing the buck or covering it up by clever words or subterfuge will not pass and must never be permitted.”

Opposition demands answers

Needless to say, these leaked chat transcripts have set the cat among the pigeons and now nobody, especially Opposition leaders, can stop talking about the leaked chats.

Congress leader, Member of Parliament (MP) and legal eagle, Abhishek Manu Singhvi tweeted, “Arnab’s chats dated 23.02.2019 refer to sharing of Intel re: action along the Pak border. It means someone very senior in Govt is leaking highly confidential info which may endanger the lives of our soldiers & so that mercenary considerations can add to TRPs.”

Arnab’s chats dated 23.02.2019 refer to sharing of Intel re: action along the Pak border. It means someone very senior in Govt is leaking highly confidential info which may endanger the lives of our soldiers & so that mercenary considerations can add to TRPs.

— Abhishek Singhvi (@DrAMSinghvi) January 16, 2021

Another legal scholar and Congress Leader P. Chidambaram, who was incarcerated on allegedly trumped-up charges by a vindictive regime asked, “Did a journalist (and his friend) know about the retaliatory strike on Balakot camp three days before the actual strike?” He went on to demand an explanation from Defence Minister Rajnath Singh asking, “If yes, what is the guarantee that their ‘source’ did not share the information with others as well, including spies or informers working for Pakistan? How did a “For Your Eyes Only” decision find its way to the government-supporting journalist?”

If yes, what is the guarantee that their ‘source’ did not share the information with others as well, including spies or informers working for Pakistan?

How did a “For Your Eyes Only” decision find its way to the government-supporting journalist? @rajnathsingh

— P. Chidambaram (@PChidambaram_IN) January 17, 2021

Eventually, even Rahul Gandhi joined the chorus. At a press conference to purportedly take on the government on the ongoing farmers’ agitation, Gandhi couldn’t resist commenting on Arnabgate. “Sensitive defence information before Balakot was given to a journalist. Even the pilots get such information at the last moment. Top five people (the prime minister, the defence minister, the home minister, the IAF chief and the NSA) had this information. Someone out of them gave him this information. This is criminal. We must find out who gave and the process of the probe should begin but it will not because the PM must have given the information,” alleged Gandhi, adding “If Arnab Goswami knew, I believe Pakistan also knew.”

Congress National Spokesperson, Pawan Khera too asked some tough questions, “As president of the ruling party, why was Amit Shah supposedly influencing TRAI? What was the hold #ArnabGoswami had on the second most powerful man in India – Amit Shah?”

‘As president of the ruling party, why was Amit Shah supposedly influencing TRAI? What was the hold #ArnabGoswami had on the second most powerful man in India – Amit Shah?’ Today’s press conference #GaddarBJPArnab pic.twitter.com/6PedBsb6N0

— Pawan Khera (@Pawankhera) January 20, 2021

Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader Tejashwi Yadav tweeted, “Those in Govt will not last for eternity and greedy media persons will not live forever but the damage they are causing to Indian democracy, its institutions & their credibility is irreversible. Not acceptable at all! Shameful!”

Those in Govt will not last for eternity and greedy media persons will not live forever but the damage they are causing to Indian democracy, its institutions & their credibility is irreversible. Not acceptable at all! Shameful!#ArnabGate

— Tejashwi Yadav (@yadavtejashwi) January 17, 2021

Meanwhile, the Maharashtra state government is mulling appropriate action against Arnab Goswami. Home Minister Anil Deshmukh tweeted, “The NCP spokesperson Mahesh Tapase Ji and Pradeep Deshmukh Ji have complained to me today about the leaked WhatsApp conversation between Arnab Goswami and Partho Dasgupta that went viral on social media.” He added, “We will take legal advice on this matter & consult with senior police officers to decide further course of action.”

We will take legal advice on this matter & consult with senior police officers to decide further course of action. (2/2)

— ANIL DESHMUKH (@AnilDeshmukhNCP) January 19, 2021

The Hindustan Times quoted Deshmukh as saying, “On the state level, we are checking if Maharashtra Police can initiate action. I am speaking to senior police officers and have sought legal opinion if action can be initiated under section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923.” 

TRPs trump Pulwama tragedy?

Meanwhile, Arnab Goswami is also in the dock for his comments on the Pulwama attack. A portion of the transcripts from February 14, 2019 deals with the Pulwama attacks, and Goswami’s take on how his channel won the TRP battle have severely tarnished his “nationalist” credentials.

In this exchange, On February 14, 2019, at around 4:19 PM Goswami brags to Dasgupta, “Sir 20 min ahead on the biggest terrorist attack of the year on Kashmir.. only only channel with aground presence”

To this Dasgupta responds asking, “Modi happened yesterday?”

Goswami responds saying, “Have planned some buildup thing after we spoke. Idea to gain massive spike. So used his speech yesterday and pushed it by a bit.” He then went on to say, “This attack we have won like crazy”

The Pulwama attacks shook the nation as 40 security personnel were killed when a asuicide bomber drove into their convoy. It was one of the darkest days the country has seen.

Goswami responds to allegations

However, Goswai has dismissed all allegations against him. In a statement released, he said, “It is beyond absurd to suggest that expecting India to strike back at Pakistan, after the Pulwama attack, was a crime. It was publicly available information and thousands of journalists reported, wrote, broadcast and analysed in the same direction after Pulwama. There are thousands of articles from that time suggesting a hard and tough response from the Indian Forces. The Government stated the same in interviews to our Network and elsewhere, which were broadcast across the world. Two things were made public at that time, officially— 1. That there will be an extremely tough military retaliation by India. 2. That the time and place of the retaliation will be chosen by India.”

Goswami further says, “I am horrified that the Congress party actually thinks that any journalist in India expressing the views publicly stated by the Government is committing a crime. In the last 10 months, from an attempted acid attack on me to framing of fake and false cases to arresting me illegally (in a case which the Supreme Court said had no prima facie merits) to assaulting me, my wife and my son, and slapping cases against them to filing an omnibus case against my entire newsroom and all my editors to putting me in jail on the trumped up charges to assaulting me in custody to interrogating my colleagues for 500 hours to whiplashing my colleague Ghanshyam with a chakki belt in custody and now joining hands with Pakistan to questioning my love and commitment to this great nation. I have been through it all.”

After claiming he has support of “millions of Indians” and schooling Indian media on “introspection”, Goswami signs off with, “Satyamev Jayate! Bharat Mata Ki Jai! Jai Hind!” Perhaps he is trying to repair the damage to his “nationalist credentials” in a bid to remain valuable to those whose political patronage he allegedly enjoys.

Meanwhile, Dasgupta who had been arrested on December 24, for his alleged involvement in the case was denied bail by the Sessions Court on Wednesday. Dasgupta had approached the Sessions Court after a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s court turned down his bail plea citing he needed to be kept away from other accused and material witnesses while a probe of the case was on. 

Related:

Republic TV, two others accused of TRP fraud
Republic TV making TRP scam a “media spectacle”: Mumbai Police to SC
Goswami’s Republic Bharat pulled up for hate speech against Pakistan: UK regulator
Right to free speech does not mean a licence to promote hate speech: Editors Guild of India
Court takes cognisance of chargesheet in suicide abetment case against Arnab Goswami
Republic TV and Times Now reportage prima facie contemptuous: Bombay High Court

The post Arnabgate: Evaluating crime and punishment appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Office of Communications (Ofcom), the regulator of communication services in the United Kingdom, has imposed a fine of £20,000 on Worldview Media Network Limited which owns the license to operate Arnab Goswami’s Republic Bharat in the country.

It concluded that the programme was in breach of Rules 2.3 (offensive and discriminatory language), 3.2 (hate speech) and 3.3 (abusive and derogatory treatment of individuals, religions or communities) of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code.

The order held that the discussion “Poochta Hai Bharat” telecast by the channel on September 6, 2019, breached broadcasting conditions by promoting “hatred and intolerance” against a group of individuals.

The breach decision reads: “an episode of the programme Poochta Hai Bharat contained comments made by the host and some of his guests that amounted to hate speech against Pakistani people, and derogatory and abusive treatment of Pakistani people. The content was also potentially offensive and was not sufficiently justified by the context.”

The show featured a debate between the host, Arnab Goswami, and the guests that comprised three Indian and three Pakistani’s, relating to India’s attempt to send the spacecraft Chandrayaan 2 on its mission to the moon.

Ofcom critically observed, “We considered that the overall tone of the discussion was provocative, comparing Pakistanis to donkeys and monkeys. We also noted that Pakistani contributors were repeatedly interrupted and afforded little time to make points which may potentially have provided challenge or context.”

Noting that terrorism is a sensitive topic, Ofcom further observed that the tone and tenor of the show was biased and hate filled. The order held, “The programme also referred to Pakistani people as “terrorists” (even children), “beggars”, “thieves”, “backward”, likened them to donkeys and referred to them as “Paki”, a racist term that is highly offensive and unacceptable to a UK audience.

The Licensee (Worldwide Media Network) argued that the use of the term “Paki” was not intended to be offensive, nor would be interpreted as such particularly when used in the sub-continent. In Ofcom’s view, these negative descriptions constituted uncontextualised abuse and derogatory treatment of Pakistani people on the ground of their nationality in breach of Rule 3.3.” (abusive or derogatory treatment of individuals)

Ofcom expressed that it was legitimate to discuss Indo-Pak relations but the show promoted brazen hate and intolerance against Pakistan. “We did not accept the Licensee’s characterisation of the programme as a whole. We considered it included repeated instances of hate speech and abusive or derogatory treatment. It was therefore our Decision that this content met Ofcom’s definition of “hate speech” and that Rule 3.2 was breached.”

The Ofcom Broadcasting Code defines hate speech as all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance on the grounds of disability, ethnicity, gender, gender reassignment, nationality, race, religion, or sexual orientation.

Taking serious cognisance of the content of the show, the order further noted, “The programme contained statements which amounted to hate speech against, and was abusive and derogatory about, Pakistani people on the basis of their nationality. Under the Equality Act 2010, race is a protected characteristic, and race includes both nationality and ethnic or national origins. These statements would potentially be harmful and highly offensive to any person who did not share the sentiment being expressed by the presenter and his Indian guests. In Ofcom’s view, the potentially harmful and offensive nature of the content was compounded by the political context in which the episode of Poochta Hai Bharat was broadcast.”

The UK regulator dismissed the licensee’s arguments by saying that they demonstrated a concerning lack of understanding of what constitutes hate speech for the purposes of the Code. Ofcom, at the time of the broadcast, had already notified Worldview Network by a telephone call and by an email on August 21, 2019, about Ofcom receiving a number of complaints about the service including in relation to “highly pejorative references to members of the Pakistani community (e.g., continually referring to them as filthy)”. Ofcom asked the Licensee’s to comply with its obligation under the Code. It was therefore their view that appropriate steps were not taken by the Licensee to prevent this contravention.

As the material aired posed “a risk of harm to the Pakistani community in the UK, and to good relations particularly between members of the UK’s Indian and Pakistani communities”, Ofcom has directed Worldwide Media Network to air a public apology for the program and not to repeat the program.

Further, to establish some degree of deterrence, Ofcom imposed an “appropriate and proportionate sanction of £20,000.”

The Ofcom order dated December 22 may be read here:

Related:

Republic TV editor Arnab Goswami arrested in 2018 suicide abetment case

Arnab’s plea listed urgently in SC, Dushyant Dave alleges preferential treatment

Right to free speech does not mean a licence to promote hate speech: Editors Guild of India

Republic TV making TRP scam a “media spectacle”: Mumbai Police to SC

The post Goswami’s Republic Bharat pulled up for hate speech agnst Pakistan: UK regulator appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Alibaug Magistrate has taken cognisance of the chargesheet filed in the abetment of suicide case of 2018 against Arnab Goswami, Editor-in-Chief of Republic TV and two other accused. The chargesheet was filed on December 4 by Raigad police and it ran up to 1,914 pages in the case of abetment of suicide of interior designer Anvay Naik and his mother Kumud. It is alleged that Naik and his mother took the drastic step due to non-payment of dues from Arnab’s firm and two other accused.

Incidentally, as the court took cognisance of the chargesheet, Goswami’s counsel, Senior Advocate Abad Ponda was arguing before the Bombay High Court in a plea seeking to restrain cognisance by the Magistrate. Ponda was informed, in the middle of the hearing about this and he pleaded before the bench of Justices SS Shinde and MS Karnik that he be allowed leave to amend the petition and to bring the chargesheet on record.

The bench recorded the same and also directed the Magistrate to expedite the grant of copy of chargesheet and relevant case documents on a formal application made by Goswami through his lawyer, according to LiveLaw. The petition will next be heard on January 6.

During the hearing however, while arguments were being forwarded for restraining the Magistrate from taking cognisance of the chargesheet, Goswami’s counsel, Ponda had placed reliance on Supreme Court’s opinion that the allegations in the FIR did not prima facie constitute offence of abetment of suicide. The bench responded that the observations were prima facie and were made at the FIR stage and that the case had now reached the chargesheet stage, reported LiveLaw.  Justice Shinde observed that the apex court’s judgment was binding only on law and not on facts.

Arnab Goswami was arrested on November 4 and was remanded to two weeks judicial custody. He was granted bail by Supreme Court on November 11 as Bombay High Court had denied him interim bail in the matter. The chargesheet, reportedly, names 65 witnesses in the case and relies upon the suicide note left behind by Anvay Naik, as dying declaration. A forensic report, after comparing handwriting, confirmed that the note was in fact written by Anvay Naik and that he was under no pressure while writing it.

The post Court takes cognisance of chargesheet in suicide abetment case against Arnab Goswami appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Republic TV Editor-in-Chief, Arnab Goswami was released on bail on November 11 as the top court Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee said that prima facie it could not be held that Goswami had abetted the suicide of Anvay Naik.

The Bench said, “Prima facie, on the application of the test which has been laid down by this Court in a consistent line of authority which has been noted above, it cannot be said that the appellant was guilty of having abetted the suicide within the meaning of Section 306 of the IPC.”

He was arrested on November 4 by Mumbai Police for his alleged role in the suicide of an interior designer Anvay Naik. In the suicide note left behind, he named Arnab and two others for not paying him his due. (Rs 83 lacs)

SC’s observation

The Bench battled in favour of ‘Personal Liberty’ while granting him bail. They lamented that the High Court abdicated its role in establishing whether or not there was a prima facie case under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (abetment to suicide) against the journalist. The Bombay High Court on November 9 had refused to grant him interim bail. Here are some significant excerpts from the apex court judgment: 

“The striking aspect of the impugned judgment of the High Court spanning over fifty-six pages is the absence of any evaluation even prima facie of the most basic issue. The High Court, in other words, failed to apply its mind to a fundamental issue which needed to be considered while dealing with a petition for quashing under Article 226 of the Constitution (High Court’s power to issue writs, orders, directions) or Section 482 of the CrPC (inherent powers of the High Court)”.

“Courts must be alive to the need to safeguard the public interest in ensuring that the due enforcement of criminal law is not obstructed. The fair investigation of crime is an aid to it. Equally it is the duty of courts across the spectrum – the district judiciary, the High Courts and the Supreme Court – to ensure that the criminal law does not become a weapon for the selective harassment of citizens.”

“The doors of this Court cannot be closed to a citizen who is able to establish prima facie that the instrumentality of the State is being weaponized for using the force of criminal law. Our courts must ensure that they continue to remain the first line of defense against the deprivation of the liberty of citizens. Deprivation of liberty even for a single day is one day too many. We must always be mindful of the deeper systemic implications of our decisions.”

The consequences for those who suffer incarceration are serious. Common citizens without the means or resources to move the High Courts or this Court languish as undertrials. Courts must be alive to the situation as it prevails on the ground – in the jails and police stations where human dignity has no protector.

As judges, we would do well to remind ourselves that it is through the instrumentality of bail that our criminal justice system’s primordial interest in preserving the presumption of innocence finds its most eloquent expression. The remedy of bail is the ―solemn expression of the humaneness of the justice system.”

Reach of Personal Liberty

While the Supreme Court’s relentless pursuit of personal liberty abets freedom, the real question is, if the lower courts are heeding this. Getting justice in the legal system is a matter of luck. There are many other isolated instances of liberty slipping away from the cracks of institutional apathy.

Safoora Zargar, who is out on bail now, was denied that relief by a Delhi Court when she was 21 weeks pregnant on charges of alleged conspiracy of blocking the roads (chakka jam) that led to the North East Delhi riots in February, 2020. (State v Safoora Zargar Bail App No. 1119 of 2020).

Justice Dharmendra Rana while noting that even if there was no direct violence that could be attributed to Safoora said, “When you choose to play with embers, you cannot blame the wind to have carried the spark a bit too far and spread the fire.”

The arrest and judicial custody of Kerala Journalist Siddique Kappan, having the Journalist Union’s application to meet Siddique in Mathura Jail rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, getting to finally interact with his lawyer after almost 50 days in custody is not the perfect example of personal liberty.

Jailed lawyer and human rights defender Sudha Bharadwaj celebrated her birthday in Byculla Jail, Mumbai for the third straight year. She continues to languish in jail with several medical problems developed in the course of her incarceration, with no charges framed against her.

It took disconcerting neurological test reports, delirium, one trip to JJ hospital, injury to his head against a hospital bed, for the Bombay High Court to comprehend the critical medical condition of Varavara Rao. When the High court directed his immediate hospitalisation it also observed that he was almost on his ‘death bed’.

Even though the Supreme Court directed the High Court to list his bail plea at the earliest, noting that every inmate’s health is important, the High Court failed to do so. During his bail plea hearing, the prosecution argued that he could be released from Taloja Jail but this should be treated as a special case and ‘not a precedent’. Prisons are a state subject and therefore the upkeep of every inmate, is the responsibility of the state. Not treating this as a strong precedent is dangerous, especially when backed by judicial power.

When Arnab’s bail plea is listed within 24 hours of filing and an 83-year-old Parkinson’s inflicted Jesuit Priest has to wait for a month for the State to respond to his plea for a sipper mug, the trend of enabling internal disparity through fractured judicial functioning reveals itself. Giving judicial form to such atrocities and blatant discrimination leaves very little meaning for personal liberty.

There are hundreds detained in Kashmir prisons after Article 370 abrogation, booked under Public Safety Act. Activists, students have continued to remain in cells despite having been granted bail under IPC, Arms Act and Property Damage Act. This is because of the stringent UAPA charges. The Supreme Court, in Bikramjit Singh vs State of Punjab (Crl. App. No. 667 of 2020) while dealing with a matter where the accused (charged under UAPA) was denied a plea to default bail said, “We must not forget that we are dealing with the personal liberty of an accused under a statute which imposes drastic punishments.” But it still lacks strict application.

Prolonged incarceration in jails without trial is the highest form of depravity of a citizen’s liberty. Where the Division Bench has managed to uphold the rights and liberties of Arnab Goswami it has failed to see all citizens equal before the law.

Justice Chandrachud had rightfully remarked that, “If constitutional courts do not interfere today, then we are travelling the path of destruction, undeniably. We must send a message to the High Court’s today that please exercise your jurisdiction to uphold personal liberty.”

This statement is very reassuring for people who have been victimised by the State. The very same State who see dissenters, free speech advocates, non-conformists from the prism of anti-national enemies. But the constitutional courts can only interfere when citizens have a free pass to approach the court through Article 32.

CJI SA Bobde’s remark “We are trying to discourage Article 32 petitions”, made while hearing a matter pertaining to Siddique Kappan’s release, makes justice sound very selective. It is hardly surprising when B.R Ambedkar called Article 32 as the heart and soul of the Constitution because it entails the idea of fundamental right to Constitutional remedies.  It protects the right of a person to approach the constitutional courts like the Supreme Court and other high courts, against the violation of any fundamental right.  

In addition to Babasaheb’s remarks, the courts have also time and again held that Article 32 is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution and constitutes its basic structure (L Chandra Kumar vs Union of India 1997 (3) SCC 261).

“The Judges of the superior courts have been entrusted with the task of upholding the Constitution and to this end, have been conferred the power to interpret it. It is they who have to ensure that the balance of power envisaged by the Constitution is maintained and that the legislature and the executive do not, in the discharge of their functions, transgress constitutional limitations”, held the 5 judge Bench of the Supreme Court.

In the past months where the State machinery has been used as a tool of oppression, there is no place for law to be manipulated by Judges the same way.

The SC order may be read here: 

Related:

Republic TV editor Arnab Goswami arrested in 2018 suicide abetment case
Arnab’s plea listed urgently in SC, Dushyant Dave alleges preferential treatment
We are trying to discourage Article 32 petitions: Chief Justice of India

The post Is Personal Liberty in India available to all? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As Arnab Goswami lodged in Taloja Jail awaits the expedited hearing of his petition against denial of interim bail, the President of Supreme Court Bar Association has, in strong words, protested against the ‘extraordinary urgent listing’ of the matter at the apex court. Mr. Dushyant Dave, the President of SCBA wrote a letter to the Secretary General of the Supreme Court pointing out the selective listing of matters that the registry is indulging in “for last eight months during Covid pandemic”.

In the beginning of the letter itself he has made it abundantly clear that this letter is not intended to “anyway interfere with the rights” of Goswami to move the Supreme Court and states that like all Citizens he also has the right to seek justice from the highest court.

Dave points out, “While thousands of Citizens remain in jails , languishing for long periods while their matters filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court are not getting listed for weeks and months, it is , to say the least, deeply disturbing as to how and why every time Mr Goswami approaches the Supreme Court , his matter gets listed instantly”. On this he immediately raised a serious question, “Is there any special Order or Direction from Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India and the Master of the Roaster in this regard? It is quite well known that such extraordinarily urgent listings of matters cannot and does not take place without specific orders from Hon’ble the Chief Justice. Or is it that as the Administrative Head you or the Registrar listing is giving special preference to Shri Goswami?”.

Dave further brought to the notice of the Secretary General that he has received several requests from advocates stating that their matters do not get listed for weeks and months, even if they are bail applications. While some advocates get instant listing, some others have to wait in queue for the same. Dave questioned why there is no full proof system that will be fair to all citizens as well as advocates, like a fully computerised and automated system.

He further pointed out how an ill-functioning video platform has been in use in the apex court for conducting video conference hearings and that has affected the pace of hearings and affected the sitting benches, rendering them unable to hear matters due to technical flaws. “Fewer Benches are in session daily and some of them don’t even sit during Court hours due to unknown reasons , may be due to technological challenges . Direct and debilitating effect is on the Justice delivery and rights of the Citizens, at least Common Man,” stated Dave.

Coming back to Goswami’s petition which was immediately listed, Dave stated, “This is a gross abuse of administrative power, whosoever has exercised it on administrative side . It gives an impression that Clients represented by certain Lawyers are getting special treatment , which does not speak well if the great Institution, that the Supreme Court is.”

He further requested the Secretary General that until cases of all those advocates who have requested urgent hearing are heard, this petition of Goswami be put on hold. He also requested that his letter be placed before the bench comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee on November 11.

Goswami was arrested by Alibaug Police on November 4 from his Mumbai house in connection with the death of an interior designer Anvay Naik and his mother Kumud Naik in 2018. A 53-year-old interior designer Anvay Naik and his mother Kumud Naik had died allegedly by suicide in Alibag in May 2018. According to a report in the Hindustan Times, a suicide note purportedly written by Anvay was found in which he stated that Goswami and two others — Feroz Shaikh and Niteish Sarda —had not paid him Rs 5.40 crore which led to financial constraints. 

There is certainly no denying that Goswami has every right to be heard before the Supreme Court like any other citizen of the country but it is the selective treatment being meted out to certain cases that poses a threat to equality before law. Goswami has been knocking the doors of every level of court possible in a bid to secure his release after being arrested in an abetment of suicide case. The bone of contention remains that his case was listed before the Bench the very next day as it was filed and puts into question the partial treatment being given to high profile cases while access to justice has been quite restricted due to the limited functioning of courts of law in the country, owing to the pandemic.

The full text of the letter may be read here:

Related:

Bombay HC denies Arnab Goswamy interim bail
Republic TV editor Arnab Goswami arrested in 2018 suicide abetment case
Right to free speech does not mean a licence to promote hate speech: Editors Guild of India

The post Arnab’s plea listed urgently in SC, Dushyant Dave alleges preferential treatment appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Republic TV Senior Executive Editor Samyabrata Ray Goswami, who is also wife of Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami, has come out in spirited defence of her husband. After Dushyant Dave, president of the Supreme Court Bar Association wrote to the Secretary General alleging preferential treatment being given to Arnab Goswami by giving his case an urgent listing, Samyabrata has penned a letter of her own where she enumerates similar instances.

She writes, “It is a fact that on 29 August, 2019 a petition in Romila Thappar vs Union of India (Writ Petition (criminal) Diary No. 32319/2018) was taken up by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the same day. This was a case in which one of the lawyers for the petitioner was Shri Dushyant Dave, who ironically is the author of the letter to the Secretary General of the Supreme Court of India questioning the speed of listing of my husband’s case.” She adds, “The duplicity of the author speaks volumes of the motivated intent.”

Samyabrata also lists examples of cases of journalist Vinod Dua and lawyer-activist Prashant Bhushan who had both been granted hearings urgently. Samyabrata further says that Dave’s letter is an attempt to sully not only Arnab Goswami’s reputation, but also that of the court. She writes, “I believe Shri Dave has attempted to tarnish the reputation, the integrity, and the independence of the great institution of judiciary and has also attempted to cause prejudice to the free and fair course of justice.”

She concludes her letter, praying for justice for her husband, “I am deeply disturbed that his life is under threat and that he has been in a jail meant for hardened criminals. I fear for his life and future as I appeal to the highest courts of this country to deliver him and us justice. I look to you with great hope, and inextinguishable faith in the judiciary – as a wife seeking justice and as a citizen of this great country.”

The entire letter may be read here:

Related:

Arnab’s plea listed urgently in SC, Dushyant Dave alleges preferential treatment
Bombay HC denies Arnab Goswamy interim bail

The post Samyabrata defends husband Arnab, takes on Dushyant Dave’s letter to SC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Bombay High Court has denied interim bail to Republic TV Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswamy who was previously arrested and remanded to 14 days judicial custody in connection with an abetment to suicide case.

LiveLaw reported that the Court rejected the bail application because no case was made out for the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 under which Goswamy had approached the court seeking writ of habeas corpus against arrest and remand in the case. Moreover, an alternate remedy of seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code is available to the accused.

A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justices SS Shinde and MS Karnik heard the case over two special sittings, one on Saturday and another on Monday, as the Court is closed for Diwali vacations. The court said, “Rejection of interim application shall not be construed as an impediment to the petitioner seeking alternate remedies.”

Before moving HC, Goswamy had filed an application seeking regular bail before the Alibag Sessions Court.

In other developments. Goswamy was shifted from a local school that has been designated a Covid-19 center for Alibag jail to the Taloja jail in Navi Mumbai. The move came after Goswamy was allegedly found to be using a mobile phone while in judicial custody. 

Interestingly, Taloja Jail is also where 80-year-old poet Varavara Rao and 83-year-old Fr. Stan Swamy, both accused in the Bhima Koregaon case, are lodged. Fr. Stan’s lawyers had recently moved court seeking permission to use a sipper as he is unable to drink water from a cup or glass because his hands tremble on account of Parkinson’s disease. But unlike Goswamy who got two special hearings despite court vacations, a decision in Fr. Stan’s plea for a sipper is not expected before the next hearing on November 26, nearly 20 days after his original plea, when the NIA is expected to file a response. All accused in the Elgaar Parishad/Bhima Koregaon case had been demonised by multiple media outlets including Goswamy’s Republic TV. 

The Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court at Alibag has allowed the police to interrogate Arnab Goswami for three hours every day at Taloja jail. On November 6 the court had permitted similar interrogation at Alibag, but Goswami was shifted to Taloja after he was found to be using a mobile phone.

Brief background

Goswamy was named in the suicide note by interior designer Anvay M Naik and his mother Kumud M Naik, where they said that non payment of dues by Goswamy and others was the reason why they were forced to take this extreme step. The duo allegedly died by suicide on May 5, 2018.

Anvay Naik was the Managing Director of Concorde Designs Private Limited, an interior designing company and his mother was also among the Board of Directors. They claimed in their suicide note that three individuals including Arnab Goswami had not paid them dues of over Rs. 5 crore causing extreme financial distress. It was also reported that Goswami owed him Rs. 83 lakhs for designing the studio of Republic TV in Mumbai.

Republic TV had, back then, issued a statement, “Republic TV would like to clarify that it had engaged the services of one Concorde Designs Private Limited sometime in December 2016… All amounts due and payable under the contract were paid by Republic TV to Concorde Designs. The details of payment, including cheque numbers, amounts, dates of payment, related correspondence and documentation are available with Republic TV.”

Back then, in 2018, the Alibag police had filed a case of abetment to suicide, but closed the case on April 16, 2019 citing lack of evidence against the accused named in the suicide note. But in May 2020, Anvay’s daughter Adnya approached Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh alleging that the police had not conducted proper investigation into the case. Subsequently a fresh investigation by the Crime Investigation Division (CID) was ordered.

The same month a video by Akshata Naik, Anvay Naik’s wife making serious allegations against the Raigad Police (Maharashtra) and Republic TV owner Arnab Goswami, surfaced. Naik said husband and her mother-in-law had allegedly committed suicide in their farmhouse in Alibag in May 2018 and in his suicide note, “Anvay had blamed Arnab Goswami” and two others, Feroz Shaikh and Niteish Sarda, for not paying his dues. She alleged that that no substantial progress has been made in the investigation into the case. 

In this video, Naik can also be seen making allegations against Suresh Varade, PI Alibag police station where he asked her to reconsider her decision of filing the FIR as it involves influential people. She says she went ahead with the FIR despite this, but the case is now at a virtual standstill with no real progress. She also alleges that she has not been given a laptop and a mobile phone back from the police which was taken for investigation. Even the suicide note was given to her after much persuasion. She apprehends serious threat to her life and says that if anything were to happen to her or her daughter, Arnab Goswami should be held responsible for it. She is also seen asking for protection for her and her daughter.

Fresh developments

Following Naik’s widow’s complaint all papers submitted in court were looked at again and some discrepancies were reportedly found. The Inspector General of Konkan region also initiated an internal enquiry against Inspector Suresh Warade and the case was officially reopened on October 15, 2020. Over 2 lakh files found on Anvay Naik’s laptop were sent for analysis and police claim to have fond new evidence that they said necessitated custody of the accused.

Goswamy was arrested from his Mumbai Home amidst high drama on November 4 and a district court in Raigarh remanded him to judicial custody till November 18.

Meanwhile another complaint was filed against Arnab Goswami and 4 others by a woman constable SG Tanvade, of the Mumbai Police. Constable Tanvade alleged that Goswami, his wife Samyabrata Goswami, their son, and two unknown persons obstructed police officers from carrying out their duties. She also accused them of assaulting female police officers on duty.

This FIR is registered under Indian Penal Code Sections 353 (deterring public servant from discharging duty), 504 and 506 (provoking breach of peace) and also under provisions of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. Constable Tanvade in her statement, submitted that she and other officers of the Mumbai Police accompanied the unit from the Raigad police for arresting Arnab Goswami in the 2018 Anvay Naik abetment of suicide case that was recently re-opened. Tanvade alleged that while Arnab was being arrested, he and his son assaulted the police officers, adding that the constable submitted that that Goswami obstructed the officers from carrying out their duty by threatening to take action against them. Bar and Bench quoted Tanvade’s statement that cited Goswami’s words:  “I am a journalist, I will ensure action is taken against the police.”

Related:

Republic TV editor Arnab Goswami arrested in 2018 suicide abetment case
Arnab Goswami remanded to judicial custody

The post Bombay HC denies Arnab Goswamy interim bail appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A court at Alibaug, in Raigad district of Maharashtra has sent Republic TV Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami and two other accused to judicial custody till November 18, after arrest in connection with a 2018 abetment to suicide case. Meanwhile another complaint has been filed against Arnab Goswami and 4 others by a women constable SG Tanvade, of the Mumbai Police. She has alleged that Goswami, his wife Samyabrata Goswami, their son, and two unknown persons obstructed police officers from carrying out their duties, and specifically for assaulting female police officers on duty, reported Bar and Bench.

This FIR is registered under Indian Penal Code Sections 353 (deterring public servant from discharging duty), 504 and 506 (provoking breach of peace) and also under provisions of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. Constable Tanvade in her statement, submitted that she and other officers of the Mumbai Police accompanied the unit from the Raigad police for arresting Arnab Goswami in the 2018 Anvay Naik abetment of suicide case that was recently re-opened. Tanvade alleged that while Arnab was being arrested, he and his son assaulted the police officers, reported B&B, adding that the constable submitted that that Goswami obstructed the officers from carrying out their duty by threatening to take action against them. The report quoted Tanvade’s statement that cited Goswami’s words:  “I am a journalist, I will ensure action is taken against the police.”

Constable Tanvade added that Goswami’s wife “tore an official arrest document”, after Goswami “ordered his wife not to sign any papers given by the police.”  According to the news report “before tearing the paper, Goswami’s wife wrote on the paper “forcibly picked up” in the place allocated for her signatures” and after the police officers told her to not do so, she tore the paper. In a video released by their channel Samyabrata Goswami had claimed that the police had torn the paper while “snatching it from her.” According to Constable Tanvade “the accused in the FIR took all measures to ensure that Arnab could not be arrested by the police”, this compelled her to file this FIR.

Arnab Goswami was produced before the Alibaug Court on Wednesday in after his arrest in connection with the 2018 case of interior designer Anvay Naik’s death by suicide. According to news reports the police had sought Goswami’s custody for 14 days, however according to the court custodial interrogation was not required.

According to a report in ABP, Goswami’s lawyers Aabad Ponda and Gaurav Parkar filed an application seeking bail. The bail hearing is likely to be held today, Thursday November 5. The police have been asked to file their reply. Goswami was lodged at a police station on Wednesday night as the court proceedings went on till late. Earlier in the day Goswami was taken for medical check-up at the civil hospital, and brought back to court later in the evening.

According to the news report the court, after perusing the medical report, noted in its order that “allegations of physical assault were incorrect and there were only minor scratches on the accused’s hand.”

He has been booked under section 306 (abetment of suicide) and 34 (common intention) of the IPC in connection with the suicide of architect-interior designer Anvay Naik and Naik’s mother over alleged non-payment of dues by Republic TV in 2018. The two others arrested in the case are Feroze Mohammed Shaikh and Nitesh Sarda. They were also produced in court and remanded to judicial custody till November 18.

The Indian Express reported that for Anvay Naik’s family, this arrest is the ‘first step in battle for justice’. The managing director of Mumbai-based architectural and interior designing firm Concorde Designs, died by suicide and his mother Kumud, who was also found dead in the bungalow along with him, was on the board of directors of the firm. Anvay’s daughter, Adnya Naik, was quoted by IE saying, “Goswami has been doing shows about the suicide of Sushant Singh Rajput and aggressively seeking arrests even though no suicide note was left behind. In the case of my father and grandmother, they left behind a suicide note specifically naming Goswami and two others but no action was taken against them for nearly two years.”

Adnya and her mother Akshata told the media they have done everything from starting a YouTube channel, writing to the Prime Minister’s Office to approaching Goswami himself, in order to get justice. “Right from the day of the suicide, there has been pressure on us to not get an FIR lodged. The police then told us that powerful people were involved and we should not get an FIR registered. However, when we insisted, an FIR was registered,” Adnya told the media.

Akshata replied to allegations by Goswami’s supporters that he was arrested due to ‘political vendetta’, and said, “This is justice for a family that had been fighting against powerful people like Goswami. Only people who do not know about our struggle can make such statements. What has happened to us has not happened to the families of the politicians alleging political vendetta.We do not want to make this political. It is about a family seeking justice for two of its members. Even now, when we see the emails written by my father to Arnab asking him to return dues of Rs 83 lakh, we start crying. He had mailed him a couple of times the month before his suicide and called it ‘a matter of life and death’ in the mail, but there was no response.” 

Related:

Republic TV editor Arnab Goswami arrested in 2018 suicide abetment case

Right to free speech does not mean a licence to promote hate speech: Editors 

Republic TV making TRP scam a “media spectacle”: Mumbai Police to SC

Arnab Goswami in hot water again: Widow of interior designer seeks justice in 2018 suicide abetment case

HRDA demands investigation into fabricated cases lodged against journalist Manish Soni

Allahabad HC grants bail to journalist Prashant Kanojia

Stop harassment of Anuradha Bhasin and other independent voices in Kashmir: NWMI

Delhi Police ACP thrashes journalist inside police station!

The post Arnab Goswami remanded to judicial custody, bail hearing likely today appeared first on SabrangIndia.