Saturday, April 13, 2024
HomeNews ReportsTwo Freudian slips during the hearing of Arnab Goswami's plea in Supreme Court against...

Two Freudian slips during the hearing of Arnab Goswami’s plea in Supreme Court against the Bombay High Court order denying him interim bail

Justice Chandrachud's observations on the state action against Goswami provide a testimony to the fact that action against Arnab Goswami is plain hounding for his reportage.

The plea of Arnab Goswami, the Editor-in-Chief of Republic TV, challenging the Bombay High Court denying him interim bail is being heard by a bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee in the Supreme Court. During the hearing some scathing observations were made by Justice Chandrachud against the Bombay High Court for failing uphold personal liberty of an individual. However, apart from that two Freudian slips were made by senior advocates who are representing the Maharashtra government in the Supreme Court.

Maharashtra government has maintained that the police action against Arnab Goswami has nothing to do with his journalism and his way of reporting. Speaking on Goswami’s arrest, Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Raut had claimed that the state government did not act against vindictively and that police had arrested him on the basis of evidence. The state government has been arguing in the court that Goswami’s name was mentioned by Anvay Naik, the deceased interior designer, in his suicide note and that was why Goswami was arrested.

However, during the hearing in the Supreme Court today, Justice Chandrachud questioned Sibal whether there was direct incitement on part of Goswami that led Naik to commit suicide. Justice Chandrachud asked whether a case of unpaid dues made a fit case for abetment to suicide.

Justice Chandrachud said that if the court does not interfere today, it would be travesty of justice. Senior advocate Amit Desai representing Maharashtra government then inadvertently mentioned how the case against Arnab may not really be of direct incitement but ‘circumstances’ leading to suicide of Naik.

It is noteworthy that Goswami was not the only person who owed money to Naik, there were several others. Justice Chadrachud further questioned Sibal whether not paying up money amounted to abetment to suicide.

Defending Maharashtra government’s action against 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 Maharashtra government against Goswami was not related to the suicide case but to his reportage. Right from the TRP case to the abetment to suicide case, the ruthless state action against Goswami following his reporting against the Thackeray government appear malicious on the face of it. Justice Chandrachud’s observations on the state action against Goswami provide a testimony to that.

Arnab Goswami has been critical of the Maharashtra government, especially during the Palghar sadhu lynching where the Mumbai Police became mere spectators as two Hindu sadhus and their driver were lynched by a mob earlier this year. Goswami had even questioned Congress President Sonia Gandhi’s silence over the matter. Congress is in alliance with the Shiv Sena and NCP in Maharashtra government.

Ayodhra Ram Mandir special coverage by OpIndia

  Support Us  

Whether NDTV or 'The Wire', they never have to worry about funds. In name of saving democracy, they get money from various sources. We need your support to fight them. Please contribute whatever you can afford

OpIndia Staff
OpIndia Staff
Staff reporter at OpIndia

Related Articles

Trending now

Recently Popular

- Advertisement -

Connect with us