Arnab Goswami, the Republic TV editor-in-Chief who had been languishing in the jails of Maharashtra for over 6 days now, owing to Maha Vikas Aghadi and especially Shiv Sena’s animosity against Goswami has finally been granted bail. After the high courts refused to grant Goswami bail, the matter had reached the Supreme Court today. Goswami had challenged a Bombay High Court order of November 9 which had rejected the bail plea while asking him to move Sessions court for regular bail.
Appearing for Goswami, senior lawyer Harish Salve put forth some valid points that showed the Maharashtra government’s malice as the reason for his client’s arrest and not the abetment to suicide case. The vacation bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee during the hearing gave a nice verbal thrashing to Kapil Sibal, as well as the Maharashtra government.
The court in its judgment said, “We hold HC was incorrect in not granting bail. Arnab Goswami and two other accused be released on interim bail on a bond of Rs 50,000. Commissioner of Police is directed to ensure order is followed immediately.”
BAIL granted by the Supreme Court to Arnab Goswami and others. https://t.co/xHguYLn2nR
— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) November 11, 2020
Harish Salve had vociferously argued that the power to re-investigate was wrongly used in this particular case and said that the overlay of malice and fact, abuse and conduct of state power is not something that happens on daily basis. “We’re past FIR stage. FIR was lodged in May 2018 and after this matter was probed. The power to re-investigate was wrongly used,” he told the court.
Salve further staed that “CJM Alibaug went through all this and stated that arrest of the accused is illegal. Is this not enough to release him on bond?”
Salve to Supreme Court: CJM Alibaug went through all this and stated that arrest of the accused is illegal.
Is this not enough to release him on bond?#ArnabGoswai #ArnabGoswami #SupremeCourt pic.twitter.com/FQWiiegFuC
— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) November 11, 2020
Coming to the question of abetment to suicide, Justice DY Chandrachud questioned if somebody owed someone money, does the mental stress arising from it amounted to abetment to suicide.
“Deceased was suffering from “manasik tadpan” as in FIR or mental stress? For section 306 abetment there needs to be actual incitement. Does one owes money to another and they commit suicide would it be abetment?” said the court.
The court even gave an example and stated, “Let’s take this as the suicide note and with everything as it stands. A owes B money, A pays a part and B commits suicide. Then will section 306 lie here?”
It is imperative to note that Section 306 penalizes the abetment of suicide. It reads, “If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
The court mentioned that if the court does not interfere today, it would be a travesty of justice if someone is denied bail when the abetment to suicide angle is not sufficiently proved.
“If we don’t interfere in this case today we will walk on path of destruction. If left to me I won’t watch the channel and you may differ in ideology but Constitutional courts will have to protect such freedoms”
Chandrachud: If we don't interfere in this case today we will walk on path of destruction
If left to me I won't watch the channel and you may differ in ideology but constitutional courts will have to protect such freedoms then we are walking on path of destruction. #ArnabGoswami pic.twitter.com/nJALmA5QHe
— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) November 11, 2020
“We are assuming the allegations of FIR as gospel truth but even then is a case of Section 306 made out? In a matter like this when some dues was not paid would a suicide mean abetment. Would it not be a travesty of justice if someone is denied bail for this?” said DY Chandrachud.
J Chandrachud: We are assuming the allegations of FIR as gospel truth but even then is a case of Section 306 made out?
In a matter like this when some dues was not paid would a suicide mean abetment.
Would it not be a travesty of justice if someone is denied bail for this? pic.twitter.com/9duadaWL1B
— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) November 11, 2020
Defending the Maharashtra government’s action against Arnab Goswami, Advocate Sibal said that the freedom of expression granted under Article 19 of the Constitution was not an absolute right.
By mentioning Article 19 before the Apex Court Sibal tacitly admitted that the action of the Maharashtra government against Arnab Goswami was not related to the suicide case but to his reportage.
Kapil Sibal who alongside Amit Desai was appearing for the Maharashtra Government had during the initial part of the hearing had tried to play coy in his opening remarks by saying, “What are we arguing today? Palghar or migrant issue? Those matters are listed on a later date in which no reply was filed. But what are we arguing?” Arnab getting the bail is a huge slap for the Maharashtra government which tried its level best to send Arnab to jail where hardened criminals resided. The scathing remarks by both Justices prove one thing, the lawyers of MVA will have a hard time to prove that Arnab abetted the suicide of Anvay Naik.
Current Maharashtra government are not good in handling debates and arguments. They are weak in putting forth their points…. hence they tried to avenge the insults of their own meek position to demonize Arnab and scare him. Today the respect for Maharashtra is only due to Maharaj … others wise there is absolutely lack of leadership and charisma.
Its very dangerous for common people with this attitude.
Arnab went into jail as a journalist, but will return as a hero.
Common people are saved by Supreme Court otherwise the government which is there for the people by the people are shutting off the voice of people.
Day by day the Shivsena government of Maharashtra is loosing its trustworthiness and dignity drastically and indulging in antipublic activities which no doubt will be derogatory to its existence in future.