Unparalleled Overreach By The Executive

It is heartening to note that the Supreme Court, which has been under severe criticism by several quarters for its slow reaction in cases involving personal liberty, has delivered a landmark judgement dated 27.11.2020 in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. The State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No.742 of 2020.

Mr. Arnab Goswami, who is the editor-in-chief of Republic TV also dons the role of Managing Director of ARG Outlier Media Asianet News Private Limited (ARG) which owns and operates a Hindi television news channel by the name of R Bharat.

He was arrested on 4 November, 2020 in connection with FIR 59 of 2018 which was registered at Alibaug Police Station under Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC.

As per the complaint, ARG awarded a contract for civil and interior work to Concorde Design Private Limited which was substantially owned by one Mr. Anvay Naik, who later committed suicide.

An FIR was registered on 5 May, 2018 on the complaint by his wife. The FIR contained various allegations including default in payments by ARG to the tune of Rs.83 lakhs apart from other outstanding amounts from other persons. The deceased Mr. Naik left a suicide note naming three persons including Mr. Arnab Goswami as being responsible for his death.

Requisite procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) was followed thereafter- issuance of notice under section 91; recording of statements; preparation of ‘A’ summary as per Para 219 (3) of the Bombay Police Manual, 1959.

Since there was no evidence to justify sending the case to be tried by the Magistrate, the case was closed and the informant was told about the closure on 12 June, 2019.

The matter suddenly came back to life in April, 2020 along with other matters initiated by the State of Maharashtra against Mr. Goswami. After his arrest and denial of bail by the Bombay High Court, he moved the Supreme Court which categorically held that “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.”

Further the court observed that “In this batch of cases, a prima facie evaluation of the FIR does not establish the ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC. The appellants are residents of India and do not pose a flight risk during the investigation or the trial.”

What is baffling is notwithstanding the observations of the Supreme Court and the matter being under investigation, the Home Minister of the State of Maharashtra, within 12 hours of the Supreme Court’s judgement, in a press conference, spoke about filing a strong chargesheet in the matter.

Days after, within the span of a week, a chargesheet was filed as a follow-up on the political instruction. This is an affront to the entire justice delivery system. A respected high ranking minister ought not to have said so.

When the Home Minister himself speaks thus and then subverts all due process to ensure a chargesheet is hurriedly filed right ahead of a hearing by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court on the matter, how can one expect a fair and independent investigation in cases initiated against Mr. Goswami? This clearly shows malice.

In fact, hours after the Maharashtra Government was served a copy of the interim applications filed by Arnab Goswami before Bombay High Court highlighting and evidencing the heightened political malice in the Anvay Naik case, and seeking a stay on a chargesheet being filed, the Police in the state filed the chargesheet. The order of events and the hasty movement by the state machinery spills their true intent ridden in malice and malafide.

These are days when governments have started initiating malicious prosecutions and what was a golden rule once has now become an exception. ‘Jail’ has become the rule and ‘bail’ an exception.

I am not concerned about Mr. Goswami’s case in particular. I am also concerned with senior citizens languishing in jail and not able to get even basic amenities. Stan Swamy, for instance, who suffers from Parkinsons, requested for a straw and sipper to drink water, which was denied. This request should have been granted straight away. Isn’t denial of such a request tantamount to degradation of human life?

Justice Krishna Iyer famously roared that even the practice of handcuffing was bad. I think courts should take heed from the tone which has been set and go back to days when personal liberty, human rights and fundamental freedoms were given utmost importance. Otherwise we risk falling back into the days of ‘Jungle Raj’ and the ‘Dark Days of Emergency’.

I am certain that the Supreme Court and the High Courts will not allow that to happen particularly with very highly eminent and intellectual judges occupying these high offices.