1ST YEAR B.A./B.B.A., LL.

B – SEMESTER-II (2020)

1ST -INTERNAL ASSESSMENT

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

IRAC ANALYSIS

NAME: JAI JOSHI

DIVISION: B

PRN: 20010126146

COURSE: BBA LL.B. (H) Word Count (excluding cover page,

footnotes, and citation page): 2113 words
BATCH: 2020-2025

Page | 1
MANU/SC/0448/2020

“BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA”

Arnab Ranjan Goswami……………...………….…..………………….Petitioner

v.

Union of India & Ors…………………………………………………Respondent

Decided on 19th May, 2020

Page | 2
 FACTS

The genesis of the case originates from two broadcasts- one on 16 th April, 2020 on Republic TV
and the other on 21st April, 2020 on R. Bharat. The editor in chief of Republic TV and an anchor
at R. Bharat, Mr. Arnab Ranjan Goswami (petitioner) was hosting these shows in the light of
Palghar incident. The incident being talked about happened in the village of Gadchinchle,
Palghar district, Maharashtra wherein on 16th April 2020 three persons including two sadhus
were brutally lynched and killed by a mob (allegedly) in the presence of the personnel of police.
The broadcast of “Poochta hai Bharat” show regarding this incident gave rise to various
criminal complaints and FIRs against the petitioner in Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Madhya
Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Telangana, Rajasthan and Jharkhand. These complaints were
mainly filed by Congress Party workers and were done with ulterior motive to misuse the
enforcement machinery. The petitioner thus approached the Supreme Court for quashing these
multiple FIRs and complaints and for seeking relief and protection.

ISSUES

1. Whether the court under article 321 quashes multiple FIRs & Complaints arising out of
the same cause of action.

2. Whether at the behest of the accused the investigation be transferred to the authority of
choice.

3. Whether Article 19 (1) (a)2 can be used to protect the views of the petitioner as a
journalist.

1
INDIA CONSTI art. 32
2
INDIA CONSTI art. 19

Page | 3
 RULES

1. Article 143 of the Indian Constitution, 1949

Right to Equality

2. Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, 1949

Right to Freedom of speech and expression.

3. Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, 1949

Right to Constitutional Remedies.

4. Section 154 of the CrPc4, 1973

Information in cognizable cases.

CONTENTIONS

PETITIONER

It was contended by the petitioner that:

1. The investigation conducted by the Mumbai Police after the transfer of FIR 28 to NM
Joshi Marg Police Station has been unfair and partial. The investigation is being driven
by political factors and is mala fide. Also, the petitioner was questioned for about 12
hours without and a break and was not allowed to contact anyone.
2. The investigation is being used to dimmish the petitioner’s right to free speech
guaranteed under article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution.
3. The investigation should be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation or an
independent investigation agency.
3
INDIA CONSTI art. 14
4
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 § 154, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1973 (India)

Page | 4
 4. The petitioner and his family should be provided with security at his residence and for
business establishments.
5. The petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition under article 32 of the Indian Constitution
restraining the State of Maharashtra from accepting any FIR against the petitioner
concerning the broadcast and from continuing any investigation further.

RESPONDENT

It was contended by the respondents that:

1. The petitioner has tried to stifle the investigation of the Mumbai Police by the use of
social media in the form of tweets, etc.
2. The petitioner has not moved to the High Court for quashing of FIRs under CrPc section
4825 or for the granting of anticipatory bail and thus the petition filed under article 32
ought not be entertained.
3. The right of freedom of speech of the petitioner under article 19(1)(a) is subject to
limitations under article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution.
4. The transfer of the Investigation to NM Joshi Marg Police Station, Mumbai was done
with the consent of the petitioner and thus the allegations of the petitioner are baseless.
5. The statements made by the petitioner in the broadcasted TV show can be called as
offences under Sections 153A6, 295A7 and cognate provisions of the IPC.

RATIO

After careful analysis of petitioners’ and respondents’ contentions, the learned division bench of
the Apex court pronounced its judgment on the three issues as:
1. Quashing of multiple FIRs & complaints

5
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 § 482, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1973 (India)
6
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 153, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).
7
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 295, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).

Page | 5
 1.1. The court relies upon the judgement of TT Antony v. State of Kerala8 which states that
there cannot be a second FIR on the same cognisable offence for which an FIR has been
registered once. The court in this decision interpreted Sections 154, 1569 and 17310 of
Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“CrPC”).
1.2. The court finds that the accused cannot be subjected to a fresh investigation each time a
new information is received on the same cognisable offence. This is in consonance with
article 19 and 2111 of the constitution of India in relation to the investigative powers of
the police with respect to cognisable offences.
1.3. The court further analysed Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash12, State of Bihar v. JAC
Saldanha13 and Babubhai v. the State of Gujarat 14 and concluded that if the multiple
FIRs are in the form of a counterclaim or are related to different crimes then they ought
to be valid and such investigation can be carried forward.
1.4. Thus, after assessment of the facts of the case the court opines that the multiple FIRs and
complaints filed in this case shall be quashed except the one filed in Nagpur and later
transferred to Mumbai.

2. Transfer of investigation
2.1. Maneka Gandhi vs UOI & Anr. 15 is a landmark judgment of the Apex court which talks
about the right of the accused and talks about how fair and just conduct of every trial is
sine qua non to safeguard the sanctity of the administration of the criminal justice
system. Further Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Ors. v. The State of Gujarat and Anr. 16
also, on the same lines reconfirmed ‘the fair and just conduct of a trial cannot be ensured
in the absence of fair and just investigation.’ As laid down in these judgments the court
would try to ensure a fair and just conduct of trial in deciding whether the investigation
can be transferred to an investigation agency on the behest of the accused.

8
TT Antony v. State of Kerala, MANU/SC/0365/2001.
9
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 § 156, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1973 (India)
10
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 § 173, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1973 (India)
11
INDIA CONSTI art. 21
12
Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, MANU/SC/0733/2004.
13
State of Bihar v. JAC Saldanha, MANU/SC/0253/1979.
14
Babubhai v. The State of Gujarat, MANU/SC/0643/2010.
15
Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India & Anr, MANU/SC/0133/1978
16
Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Ors. v. The State of Gujarat and Anr., MANU/SC/1427/2019.

Page | 6
 2.2. The court relies upon Romila Thapar v. Union of India17 case in which it was held that in
the appointment of an investigation agency the accused does not have a say. Further the
court also refers to State of West Bengal v Committee for Protection of Democratic
Rights18, West Bengal which stated that such appointment can take place but only in
exceptional situations.
2.3. The court refrains from commenting on an ongoing investigation as it might have an
impact on the fairness of such investigation.
2.4. Thus, the court holds that the request of the petitioner to transfer the investigation to CBI
cannot be granted and even if the accused has the right to free trial, he cannot be given
the power to decide upon the investigation agency conducting such trial. Also, no
exceptional situations could be established in the matter at hand and thus the court’s
answer to this issue is in negative.
3. Journalistic freedom under article 19(1)(a)
3.1. The court opines that even though there are restrictions under article 19 (2) of the COI
on the exercise of journalistic freedom protected by article 19 (1) (a), the court cannot
allow a journalist to face multiple complaints in different jurisdictions as it would have a
negative impact on the freedom of the press. The freedom of India according to the
Court is protected ‘as long as journalists can speak to power without being chilled by a
threat of reprisal.’19
3.2. The court applying the least restrictive measure test finds that subjecting the petitioner to
multiple FIRs in different states is an unnecessary harassment to him and is violative of
the petitioner’s rights as a citizen and a journalist.
3.3. The court ensuring fair treatment under Article 14 declares quashing of all the FIR’s and
complaints except the one transferred to NM Josh Marg Police Station. The court tries to
seeks a balance between the Fundamental rights and investigation of an offence under
the CrPc.

ANALYSIS

17
Romila Thapar v Union of India, MANU/SC/1098/2018.
18
State of West Bengal v Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal, MANU/SC/0121/2010
19
Supra note 1, Para 32.

Page | 7
 1. Even before the hearing of the case started, the expedited treatment in terms of the urgent
listing of the case attracted many questions. The case was filed in the Apex court on 23-
04-2020 at 08:07 PM20, and on the same fortnight the case was assigned to the division
bench consisting of D.Y.Chandrachud & M.R.Shah JJ to be heard on the next morning.
This listing made people question the pick and choose policy of the Supreme Court.21
2. This case reiterates that the higher judiciary is empowered with the powers of transferring
investigation under the constitutional scheme. However, it is important to note and to
question as to when such powers can be exercised by the courts at the top of the judicial
setup. These powers have been bestowed to ensure fair and just conduct of investigations
and this power cannot be used under normal circumstances. Even though it is clear that
such powers should be exercised only in exceptional situations, there is still ambiguity on
what those exceptional situations should be. The judiciary feels that having a set
guideline for the usage of such powers ‘would belie not just public confidence in the
normal course of law but also render meaningless the extraordinary situations that
warrant the exercise of the power to transfer the investigation.’ 22 Thus, the identification
of such exceptional grounds should be done after assessing the facts and circumstances
on a case-to-case basis. The supreme court failed to treat the present case as an
exceptional case which very well could have been treated like one. It was an exceptional
case because not only the petitioner was making claims of mala fide intention on part of
the police, but in fact even the police had filed an affidavit in the court seeking protection
from the threat, coercion and pressure of the petitioner. Both the petitioner and the
respondent that is the state through the investigation agency claimed that the investigation
may be vitiated. The court in deciding this case neglected the powers vested in it and did
not treat it as an exceptional case even though it could have fallen in that category.
3. The Supreme Court while deciding similar cases gave a different judgment than was
pronounced in the present case. After deciding the present case on 19 th May, 2020,
another case on similar lines was decided on 29th May, 2020 wherein a congress leader
facing multiple FIRs sought quashing of such complaints. The three-judge bench led by
20
See Diary No. 11006/2020
21
Urgent Listing Of Arnab's Case: Lawyer Expresses Discontent Over SC's Registry, Alleges Discrimination &
Preferential Treatment Live Law, https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/urgent-listing-of-arnabs-case-lawyer-expresses-
discontent-over-scs-registry-allegesdiscrimination-preferential-treatment-155712 (last visited April 30, 2021)
22
Supra note 1, Para 41.

Page | 8
 Arun Mishra J. refused to grant Pankaj Punia, i.e., the petitioner relief and further noted
that it was ‘not inclined’ under Article 32 of the Constitution to entertain the writ
petition.23 Thus the question arises that how only 10 days ago the court under the same
factual scenario had ordered the quashing of the complaints and had accepted the petition
under Article 32. Gandhiji in his address at the Congress session at Ahmedabad said that
the freedom of opinion and freedom of association are “the two lungs that are absolutely
necessary for a man to breathe the oxygen of liberty.” Shreya Singhal v. Union of India24
emphasised the importance of free speech and freedom of press for a democracy. The
court believed that the dissemination of news should not be affected because of the fear
of multiple complaints and criminal proceedings. Thus, the court was right in quashing
the multiple FIRs and complaints against the petitioner.

INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT

Article 19 (1) (a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech and expression
which is considered to be a universal human right. The United Nations’ Declaration of Human
Rights, 1948 also talks about the freedom of speech and expression which also includes the right
to hold opinions without interference. The court however did not agree to quash the FIRs filed in
respect to hurting of religious sentiments in the present case because the right provided under
these provisions is not absolute. Article 19 (2) of the COI acts as the limitation to Article 19 (1)
(a) and imposes reasonable restrictions. The constitution does not allow an individual to outrage
the religious feelings of another. Thus, the court was right in its decision regarding the FIRs on
the derogatory statements hurting the religious sentiments of people.

CONCLUSION

The court should have treated the present case as an exception and should have used the powers
vested with it to transfer the investigation to a different investigation agency. Even after such

23
W.P.(Cri.) 136/2020
24
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0329/2015.

Page | 9
discrepancy it is appreciable that the court fulfilled its duty under Article 32 to safeguard the
freedom of speech and expression. The court’s balancing approach of quashing all the FIRs
except one concerning the exception under Article 19 (2) is also commendable. However, the
quick allocation of judges and listing of the case is still questionable. The court was able to
safeguard the freedom of the fourth pillar of the democracy and let us hope that this pillar in true
sense keeps playing a pivotal role in shaping our constitutional democracy.

Page | 10