NEW DELHI: Chief Justice S A Bobde on Monday said he could not stand the kind of public discourse on TV channels these days and suggested they “become a little old fashioned”.
Hearing the Maharashtra government’s appeal against a Bombay HC order staying investigations into alleged ‘hate speech’ content in a programme anchored by Arnab Goswami on Republic TV, a bench of CJI Bobde and Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian said, “As the Supreme Court, we are more concerned about peace and harmony in society. Nobody is immune from questioning. We cannot grant this immunity to anyone. But we can protect privacy and dignity.”
“However, we want some sense of responsibility from you (Goswami). In a multi-cultural and multi-religious society in India, there are some ground rules which are not to be breached,” the bench said and asked Goswami to file an affidavit in two weeks detailing the steps he would take to make the broadcast on Republic TV more responsible. It also asked the Maharashtra government to give a list of offences for which it wants to prosecute Goswami.
Goswami’s counsel Harish Salve maintained that the Maharashtra government was adopting a pick and choose policy to target the anchor. “The high court examined the FIR and the transcript of the allegedly offensive programme and said that though a few avoidable strong words were used, there was nothing that could be said to have constituted an offence under Section 153A of Indian Penal Code (disturbing communal harmony),” he said.
However, Salve agreed with the bench on responsible journalism. “Society is fragile. We should not make statements to incite communal passion. But that does not mean what was said in the programme constituted an offence under Section 153A. If the criteria adopted by Maharashtra police to lodge the case against Goswami stands, then anyone covering communal riots or a caste conflagration would be liable to be punished under Section 153A,” he said.
The Maharashtra government, through A M Singhvi, said no one could be above the law and certainly Goswami could not be treated as “an island or republic” in maintenance of rule of law. “How can a probe be stopped? I can understand protection from arrest,” he said.
When the court said there was a culture of targeting someone and the certain someone surely needed additional protection, Singhvi said Maharashtra police would not arrest Goswami, would give him 48-hour notice to appear for questioning and that there would be no late night interrogation.
The bench said, “We are contemplating protection. But even as supporters of free speech, one cannot say he cannot be questioned. Even after long periods of interrogation, the investigating officer may come across a question which he has not asked you.”
Salve said Goswami was not denying making the statement in question. “So, what is the questioning required for? It will be decided by the trial court whether the statement in question constituted an offence under Section 153A,” he said.