The Calcutta High Court has quashed a criminal case against journalist Arnab Goswami and Republic TV, which stemmed from a panel discussion aired in 2020 where allegedly offensive remarks were made about the Marwari community. Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) quashed the case, saying that the journalist and the channel had not made the offensive comments and had distanced themselves from the same.
The FIR, lodged by the Purulia Town police, accused Goswami and the channel of promoting enmity between communities and defaming the Marwari community under Sections 153A/153-B/500/504/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint centered on a remark made by Subhojit Ghosh on April 21, 2020, during a live debate on the Covid-19 pandemic on Republic TV.
Ghose had said, “Arnab I have a simple question, I have a simple question to the BJP person that the central team will investigate the, the black marketing of the dishonest Marwaris in West Bengal?”
Following the comment, an FIR was registered at Phoolbagan police station after one Mohan Bagri filed a complaint.
In its judgment delivered on April 4, a division bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Shabbar Rashidi found that there was no evidence to show that Goswami had made the remark in question or had endorsed it in any way. The court noted that the comments made by the guest were immediately condemned by Arnab Goswami and others on the panel. Goswami had responded by saying, “What? What do you mean by that? I mean what kind of a comment is that? What kind of a comment is that? One minute. One minute, One minute. Least expected comment from you”.
The court order also noted a Tweet by Republic TV strongly condemning the remarks of the panelist. The order stated that the debate was broadcast live and, therefore, beyond the control of the channel and its editors. The court said, “The statement made in this case was a personal opinion/view during a live telecast. It was made by a panelist which did not prima facie have the approval of the petitioners to make such statement.”
Emphasising on freedom of speech, the court said, “Freedom of the press or freedom of the media is the fundamental principle that communication and expression through various media, including printed and electronic media, especially published materials, should be considered a right to be exercised freely. Such freedom implies the absence of interference from an overreaching state.”
Quashing the FIR, the court said, “Thus the ingredients required to constitute the offences alleged against the petitioners not having been prima facie made out, permitting the proceedings to continue again the petitioners will be an abuse of the process of law and thus the proceeding is liable to be quashed in respect of the petitioners herein.”
