Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.
Legal Services India

» Home
Saturday, December 21, 2024

Justice Dr DY Chandrachud Not Happy With Bombay HC Ruling on Arnab Goswami

Posted in: Supreme Court
Wed, Nov 11, 20, 19:56, 4 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 4166
the manner in which Bombay High Court handled the Arnab Goswami case. A vacation Bench comprising of Justices Dr DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee of the Supreme Court is currently hearing the petition filed by Republic TV anchor Arnab Goswami

It is no ordinary matter if one of the most reputed, most distinguished and most competent Judge of a court which is none other than the Supreme Court expresses its most serious reservations on the manner in which Bombay High Court handled the Arnab Goswami case. A vacation Bench comprising of Justices Dr DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee of the Supreme Court is currently hearing the petition filed by Republic TV anchor Arnab Goswami challenging the November 9, 2020 order of the Bombay High Court which denied him interim bail in the Anvay Naik abetment to suicide case.

During the hearing, Justice Chandrachud while wondering if the offence of abetment to suicide can be invoked for mere non-payment of money, made strong oral observations against the custody of Arnab Goswami and the denial of interim relief by the Bombay High Court. The final judgment is yet to come but Justice Chandrachud has made his commitment for personal liberty known to one and all by his strong observations. What has happened with Arnab Goswami cannot be justified under any circumstances!

Truth be told, Justice Dr DY Chandrachud then minces no words to hold that, To make out a case of abetment, there has to be active incitement and encouragement. If money is owed to a person, is that a case of abetment to suicide? A owes money to B. B due to financial stress commit suicide. Will it attract offence under Section 306 IPC? We are dealing with personal liberty here and because he was owed money, Naik committed suicide due to financial stress. Is this a case for custodial interrogation?

On similar lines, Harish Salve who is one of the most eminent, senior and distinguished lawyer of the Supreme Court of India and former Solicitor General also vociferously told the court in most eloquent, effective and elegant language that the case against Arnab Goswami did not stand the test of basic ingredients required to establish an offence of abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC. Salve very rightly asked and wondered that:
Last month a man in Maharashtra committed suicide saying the Chief Minister failed to pay salary! What you do? Arrest the Chief Minister? Salve is hundred percent right on this! If Uddhav Thackeray can justify arrest of Arnab Goswami on this stupid ground that someone has named him then he himself should also come forward and go to the same jail where Arnab Goswami is lodged when someone names him! What nonsense is this!

Needless to say, this alone explains why Justice Dr DY Chandrachud even remarked that:
It will be a travesty of justice if bail is not granted while FIR is pending. Harish Salve too rightly questioned that, Do you arrest a man in a three-year-old FIR and put him in jail on a Diwali week and then transfer him to Taloja jail with hardened criminals? This is most disgraceful and what is worse is that Arnab was arrested as if he was a dreaded terrorist or a criminal and he and also his son and family members were assaulted by Bombay Police as he pointed out while talking to the press!

It cannot be overlooked that Justice Dr DY Chandrachud even went on to remark that:
It will be a travesty of justice if bail is not granted while FIR is pending. He also very rightly posed the billion dollar question that, If we as a constitutional court do not lay down law and protect liberty then who will? All the High Courts Judges and also the lower courts Judges must pay attention to what Justice Chandrachud has observed so eloquently in this high profile case!

Full attention must be paid now to what Justice Dr DY Chandrachud then also noted that:
The High Court did not deal with the aspect if the allegations constituted the offence of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. But the HC writes tones and tones of pages on why habeas is not maintainable even after prayer was given up.

What is even more laudable is that Justice Chandrachud then minces no words to state in simple, straight and suave language that:
If this court does not interfere today, we are travelling on the path of destruction. Forget this man (Goswami). You may not like his ideology. Left to myself, I will not watch his channel. Keep aside everything. If this is what our state governments are going to do to people who are to be nailed, then the Supreme Court has to intervene. There has to be a message to HCs – Please exercise your jurisdiction to uphold personal liberty.

We are seeing case after case. HCs are failing to exercise jurisdiction. People are in jail for tweets! All the High Courts of India must pay heed to what Justice Chandrachud has held so aptly and appropriately which has to be applauded! Justice Chandrachud also referred to a recent case where the Supreme Court stayed the summons issued by the West Bengal police to a woman in Delhi to appear in Kolkata for tweeting against the State Government.

It is high time and the Maharashtra State Government also must pay heed to what Justice Dr DY Chandrachud has remarked that, Our democracy is extraordinarily strong and resilient. Governments should ignore tweets and move on. This is not the basis on which elections are fought. If you don't like a channel then don't watch it. He also rightly remarked that, Technicality cannot be a ground to deny someone personal liberty.

This is not a case of terrorism. Why about more than 20 police armed with AK 47 went to his house? Is he a terrorist? Why his employees are arrested and handcuffed as if they are terrorists? Why Arnab was not allowed to wear his shoes and dragged by his hair and his son assaulted as has been alleged? All this speaks very poorly on the conduct of Mumbai police for which there is every reason to feel alarmed about!

What Justice Dr DY Chandrachud has observed so commendably in Arnab Goswami's case is brilliant and must be commended in no uncertain terms. He has certainly stated nothing but the blunt truth! This witchhunting of Arnab just because he carries some news report which are not to the liking of Maharashtra State Government as we saw in case of Palghar sadhu mob lynching case where two sadhus were beaten and stoned to death right in front of police or the Sushant Singh Rajput case or many other such cases must stop forthwith!

Harish Salve too is hundred percent right that mere non-payment of dues cannot amount to abetment of suicide! Salve is also right that the Magistrate should have released Arnab Goswami on bond on the first day of production itself as no offence was made out against him! The judgment is yet to be delivered finally but the writing on the wall is ostensibly clear from what Justice Dr DY Chandrachud has said so aptly till now which we have already dwelt in considerable detail! There can certainly be no denying or disputing it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Legal Services India

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
In the light of the latest judgment provided by the SC for commuting the death penalty of former pm Rajiv Gandhi’s assassins to life imprisonment on the ground of excessive wait on govt and President’s part to decide their whim pleas
Shanti Bhushan v Supreme Court of India through its Registrar and another in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 789 of 2018 (Arising out of Diary No. 12405 of 2018) refused pointblank to declare that the function of allocating cases and assigning benches should be exercised by the collegium of five senior Judges instead of the Chief Justice of India.
Coming straight to the nub of the matter, let me begin at the very beginning by first and foremost expressing my full and firm support to the growing perfectly justified demand that seeks chemical castration for child rapists
Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) and another v Union of India has upheld the validity of Aadhaar for availing government subsidies and benefits and for filing income tax returns! The lone dissenting Judge in this landmark case is Justice Dr DY Chandrachud. He differed entirely from the majority and struck down Section 139AA.
It is most reassuring, refreshing and re consoling to note that for the first time in at least my memory have I ever noticed a Chief Justice of India who even before assuming office outlined his priorities very clearly and courageously
Manohar Lal Sharma vs Narendra Damodardas Modi dismissed a string of petitions seeking an independent probe into the 2015 Rafale deal, for registration of FIR and Court-monitored investigation by CBI into corruption allegations in Rafale deal.
Judgement by the Supreme Court about energy conservation and infrastructure laws in the state of Himachal Pradesh.
In a major and significant development, the Supreme Court which is the highest court in India has for the second time designated 37 lawyers as Senior Advocates.
On 17th October 2018, the Cannabis Act came into force and Canada became the largest country in the world with a legal marijuana marketplace.
Why Only Lawyers Are Held Liable For Accepting Foreign Funding And Not Politicians? Why is it that under our Indian law only lawyers are held liable for accepting foreign funding and not politicians? Why politicians are mostly never held accountable for accepting foreign funding?
Finally Hindus Get The Right To Worship At Entire Disputed Land And Muslims Get 5 Acre In Ayodhya
I am a student at New Law College, Bharati Vidyapeeth University studying LLB. I am currently majoring in 3 yrs LLB Course from New Law College, and have started with my last year from July 2019.
230th report of Law Commission of India, it will certainly produce more diamonds like the Chief Justice of India designate Sharad Arvind Bobde who is most invaluable and even Kohinoor diamond stands just nowhere near him
Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court Of India vs Subhash Chandra Aggarwal the office of Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act
Sections 126 to l29 deal with the privilege that is attached to Professional Communications between the legal advisors and their clients. Section 126 and 128 mention the circumstances under which the legal advisor can give evidence of such professional communication.
National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice & Anr. Vs. UOI Notifications for establishing the Gram Nyayalayas to issue the same within four weeks.. It was considering a PIL filed by National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice.
Madhuri Jajoo vs. Manoj Jajoo has allowed the first petition for divorce by mutual consent, through the virtual hearing system.
Reepak Kansal vs. Secretary-General, Supreme Court Of India has taken a stern view of the increasing tendency to blame the Registry for listing some cases more swiftly as compared to others.
upheld the Shebait rights of the erstwhile royals of Travancore in the administration, maintenance and management of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Thiruvananthapuram.
Justice R Banumathi had assumed the role of a Supreme Court Judge on 13 August 2014. She is the sixth women to be a Judge of the Supreme Court of India
Judges cannot speak out even if they are humiliated. How long can the Supreme Court and the Judges suffer the humiliation heaped regularly?
Neelam Manmohan Attavar vs Manmohan Attavar that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would not be maintainable in order to challenge an order which has been passed by the High Court in the exercise of its judicial powers.
Jugut Ram vs. Chhattisgarh the fact that a lathi is also capable of being used as a weapon of assault, does not make it a weapon of assault simpliciter.
Sagufa Ahmed vs. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd the said order extended only the period of limitation and not the period upto which delay can be condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the statute
the legendary Kesavananda Bharati whose plea to the Apex Court is considered the real reason behind the much acclaimed Basic Structure doctrine propounded in 1973
Amar Singh vs NCT Of Delhi conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye witness so long he is found to be wholly reliable.
Madhya Pradesh vs. Bherulalthe governments taking for granted the period of limitation prescribed. In other words, it is high time and all the governments in our country both in the Centre and the States must now
Madhya Pradesh vs. Bherulal the governments taking for granted the period of limitation prescribed.
Indian Olympics Association vs. Kerala Olympic Association civil original jurisdiction dismissed Indian Olympics Association's (IOA) plea seeking transfer of a writ petition before Kerala High Court to Delhi High Court.
In Arnab's case, Justice Dr DY Chandrachud had minced no words to say that: There has to be a message to High Courts – Please exercise your jurisdiction to uphold personal liberty
It is most shocking, most disgusting and most disheartening to read that criminals are ruling the roost and making the headlines in UP time and again
Parveen vs. State of Haryana while setting aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the plea of a man in view of absence of his counsel has observed in clear, categorical
Madras Bar Association vs Union of India that exclusion of advocates in 10 out of 19 tribunals, for consideration as judicial members is contrary to the Supreme Court judgments in Union of India v. Madras Bar Association
Inderjeet Singh Sodhi vs Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board the dismissal of special leave petition is of no consequence on the question of law. We all must bear it in mind from now on
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Zaixhu Xie the practice of pronouncing the final orders without reasoned judgments.
It cannot be denied by anyone that government is the biggest litigator in courts and is responsible to a large extent for the huge pending cases in different states all across the country. The top court is definitely not happy with the state of affairs and the lethargic and complacent motto of Sab Chalta Hain attitude of the governments in India.
Centre has finally decided to get its act together and constitute the All India Judicial Service (AIJS) about which we have been hearing since age
Prashant Dagajirao Patil vs. Vaibhav@Sonu Arun Pawar a High Court, while exercising bail jurisdiction cannot issue directions which will have a direct bearing upon the trial.
Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-B, Bharatpur vs M/s Bhagat Singh in exercise of itsextraordinary appellate jurisdiction that a statute must be interpreted in a just, reasonable and sensible manner
Pravat Chandra Mohanty vs Odisha refused the plea seeking compounding of offences of two police officers accused in a custodial violence case.
Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in S.T. Case No.182/392 of 2014, acquitting the Respondents from charges under Sections 302/201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code IPC
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. M/S Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd. the period of limitation for filing the Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would commence from the date on which the signed copy of the award was made available to the parties.
Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal and another v. Maharashtra in page 386 of the citation that: The quantum of bribe is immaterial for judging gravity of the offence under PC Act. Proceedings under PC Act cannot be quashed on the ground of delay in conclusion particularly where the accused adopted dilatory tactics.
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has proposed to introduce the Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2021.The new proposal would amend the Cinematograph Act of 1952 to grant the Centre "revisionary powers" and allow it to "re-examine" films that have already been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
I have not come across a single person in my life who has not complained of milk being not up to the mark and even in my own life I don't remember how many times my mother
Akhila Bharata Kshatriya Mahasabha v/s Karnataka barring installation of statues or construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places.
Manohar Lal Sharma vs Union of India has made it clear that State won't get a free pass by mere mention of national security.
State of MP vs Ghisilal the civil courts has no jurisdiction to try suit relating to land which is subject-matter of ceiling proceedings, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
Deserving cases in Supreme Court also don't get listed in time and keep pending for a long time and not so deserving cases get listed most promptly when backed by eminent law firms and senior lawyers
Top