Supreme Court Asks Republic TV To Approach Bombay High Court: Dismisses Its Plea To Quash FIR
(Judicial Quest News Network)
Apex Court on Thursday refused to entertain writ petition filed by ARG Outlier Media Ltd against a FIR registered by Mumbai Police last October against its editors and reporters for allegedly trying to cause “disaffection “among members of the police personnel.
Senior Advocate Sidharth Bhatnagar contended today that it was colonial product now being used to curb free speech, Chief Justice of India SA Bobde observes that the matter can be taken to the High Court.
The petition has been dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach High Court.
In particular the petition had challenged sections 3 and 5 of the 1922 Act, as violative of Article 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution and against the principles of natural justice.
It was also sought by the petitioners to quash the FIR no.20 of 2020 registered by the Mumbai police on October 23 in relation to a Republic TV broadcast on October 22. The said FIR invoked various provisions including defamation and offences under the 1922 Act and was filed against Republic Tv as well as its editorial team, news room in charge staff.
The FIR was registered at NK Joshimarg police station under section 3(1) of the police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 and Under Section 500(defamation) of IPC, on a complaint filed by sub-inspector Shashikant Pawar of the Special Branch.
The petitioner contended that the Republic Tv was simply airing the views of certain right-minded members of the political dispensation in Maharashtra as well as within the police forces in Mumbai against the brazen manner in which Respondent no .3 (Parambir Singh had Conducted himself.
CJI SA BOBDE said that the entire cause of action has arisen in Maharashtra and therefore the parties must first approach the Bombay High Court.
The petitioners added that the broadcast referred to sources within Mumbai police, who had expressed their views. As part of their obligations as journalists, the petitioners are duty bound to protect such sources and cannot be asked to compromise their identity in the garb of investigation, it was submitted.
It was also submitted that the Law Commission of India, in its 248th report, had termed the las as loosely worded, prone to misuse and significant curb on the freedom of speech. The Law Commission had, therefore, recommended that the Act be re-examined in the light of the potential infringement of fundamental rights to free speech and expression, the petitioner submitted.
The petitioner also brought it into the notice of the court that once Mahatama Gandhi had also written a letter to Viceroy, in 1922 on how the law was Virulent form of repression.
