2020 (5) TMI 702 - SC - Indian Laws

Murder - two sadhus were brutally killed by a mob allegedly in the presence of the police and forest guard personnel - offence under 153 153A 153B 295A 298 500 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code - HELD THAT - The fundamental basis on which the jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked Under Article 32 is the filing of multiple FIRs and complaints in various States arising from the same cause of action. The cause of action was founded on a programme which was telecast on R Bharat on 21 April 2020. FIRs and criminal complaints were lodged against the Petitioner in the States of Maharashtra Rajasthan Madhya Pradesh Telangana and Jharkhand besides the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir. In the present case all the FIRs or complaints which have been lodged in diverse jurisdictions arise out of one and the same incident-the broadcast by the Petitioner on 21 April 2020 on R Bharat. The broadcast is the foundation of the allegation that offences have been committed under the provisions of Sections 153 153A 153B 295A 298 500 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code - The manner in which the Petitioner has been subjected to numerous FIRs in several States besides the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of identical allegations arising out of the same television show would leave no manner of doubt that the intervention of this Court is necessary to protect the rights of the Petitioner as a citizen and as a journalist to fair treatment (guaranteed by Article 14) and the liberty to conduct an independent portrayal of views. In such a situation to require the Petitioner to approach the respective High Courts having jurisdiction for quashing would result into a multiplicity of proceedings and unnecessary harassment to the Petitioner who is a journalist. The transfer of an investigation to the CBI is not a matter of routine. The precedents of this Court emphasise that this is an extraordinary power to be used sparingly and in exceptional circumstances - The principle of law that emerges from the precedents of this Court is that the power to transfer an investigation must be used sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances . In assessing the plea urged by the Petitioner that the investigation must be transferred to the CBI we are guided by the parameters laid down by this Court for the exercise of that extraordinary power. It is necessary to address the grounds on which the Petitioner seeks a transfer of the investigation. The contention of the Petitioner that the length of the investigation or the nature of the questions addressed to him and the CFO during the interrogation must weigh in transferring the investigation cannot be accepted. The investigating agency is entitled to determine the nature of the questions and the period of questioning - the allegation of the Petitioner that there is a conflict of interest arising out of the criticism by him of the alleged failure of the State government to adequately probe the incident at Palghar is not valid. The investigation of the Palghar incident is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Mumbai police. The interview given by the complainant to a representative of R Bharat does not furnish a valid basis in law for an inference that the investigation is tainted or as warranting a transfer of investigation to the CBI. The Government of Maharashtra has moved an application before this Court (affirmed by the DCP Zone-3) seeking appropriate directions to insulate the investigating agency from any pressure threat or coercion from the Petitioner and to enable it to discharge its lawful duties in a fair and transparent manner - The investigating agency has placed on the record what it believes is an attempt by the Petitioner to discredit the investigation by taking recourse to the social media and by utilizing the news channels which he operates. Social media has become an overarching presence in society. An individual under investigation has a legitimate expectation of a fair process which accords with law. The displeasure of an Accused person about the manner in which the investigation proceeds or an unsubstantiated allegation (as in the present case) of a conflict of interest against the police conducting the investigation must not derail the legitimate course of law and warrant the invocation of the extraordinary power of this Court to transfer an investigation to the CBI. Courts assume the extraordinary jurisdiction to transfer an investigation in exceptional situations to ensure that the sanctity of the administration of criminal justice is preserved - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Multiple FIRs and complaints filed against the Petitioner across various states.
2. Allegations of a politically motivated investigation.
3. Request for transfer of investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
4. Protection of journalistic freedom under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
5. Validity and scope of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code concerning defamation.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Multiple FIRs and Complaints:
The Petitioner, a media journalist, faced numerous FIRs and complaints across multiple states due to broadcasts on Republic TV and R Bharat. These FIRs were lodged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 153, 153-A, 153-B, 295-A, 298, 500, 504, 506, 120-B, and 117. The Supreme Court, referencing the decision in TT Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181, emphasized that there can be no second FIR for the same cognizable offense or incident. The Court noted that the multiple FIRs were based on the same broadcast and thus constituted an abuse of process. Consequently, all FIRs and complaints, except the one under investigation at NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai, were quashed.

2. Allegations of Politically Motivated Investigation:
The Petitioner alleged that the investigation by the Mumbai police was politically motivated, citing an attack on him by alleged INC members and the questioning during the investigation focusing on irrelevant aspects. The Court, however, found no substantial evidence to support the claim of a politically motivated investigation. It noted that the Petitioner had initially consented to the transfer of the investigation to NM Joshi Marg Police Station, undermining the argument for bias.

3. Request for Transfer of Investigation to CBI:
The Petitioner sought the transfer of the investigation to the CBI, arguing that the Mumbai police were biased. The Court reiterated that the transfer of investigations to the CBI is an "extraordinary power" to be used "sparingly" and in "exceptional circumstances." The Court found no compelling reason to transfer the investigation, emphasizing that the dissatisfaction of the accused with the investigation process does not justify such a transfer. The Court upheld the investigation by the Mumbai police and rejected the transfer request.

4. Protection of Journalistic Freedom:
The Court underscored the importance of journalistic freedom under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, noting that subjecting a journalist to multiple FIRs in different states for the same cause of action has a chilling effect on free speech. The Court balanced the need to protect journalistic freedom with the necessity of allowing lawful investigations to proceed. The Court quashed the multiple FIRs to prevent harassment and ensure fair treatment of the Petitioner.

5. Validity and Scope of Section 499 IPC:
The Petitioner challenged the validity of Section 499 IPC concerning defamation. The Court, referencing Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Ministry of Law (2016) 7 SCC 221, clarified that defamation complaints must be initiated by the person aggrieved. The Court noted that the FIR under investigation at NM Joshi Marg Police Station did not cover the offense of criminal defamation under Section 499 IPC, and thus, it was unnecessary to address the constitutional challenge to the provision in these proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court quashed all FIRs and complaints except the one under investigation at NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai. The request for transferring the investigation to the CBI was rejected. The Court emphasized the protection of journalistic freedom while allowing the lawful investigation to proceed. The Petitioner was granted liberty to pursue remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure before the competent forum. The Court extended the protection against coercive steps for three weeks to enable the Petitioner to seek appropriate legal remedies.