Foreigner Can’t Scuttle Citizens' Rights Under Article 19: Centre To Calcutta HC In Plea By Abhishek Banerjee’s Wife Against Media Coverage

The Central government today opposed the plea moved by Abhishek Banerjee’s wife against the ‘incessant and sensational’ coverage by the media of the petitioner’s family, including her husband, pertaining to the investigation into the multi-tier recruitment scam being carried out by the CBI and ED.DSG Billwadal Bhattacharya appearing for the Union of India submitted that Rujira Banerjee is a foreign citizen who merely held an OCI card and could not be allowed to espouse her rights under Article 14 and 21, while attempting to stifle the Article 19 rights of the media houses."A foreigner is before your lordship pleading that her Article 14 and 21 rights are being violated and is praying to curtail the fundamental rights of the press and other citizens of India. Media reports are speculative, but can a foreigner can scuttle the voice of Indian citizens? Petitioner is a foreigner, merely holding an OCI card," he argued.At an earlier hearing, a single-bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya had acknowledged that while guidelines may be passed for reporting, prayer for a ‘gag order’ on the media was not acceptable in a democracy.The TMC MP's wife claimed that the media coverage was portraying her husband as guilty and that it was jeopardising his right to a fair trial. She claimed a lot of information pertaining to the investigation was leaked to the media by ED itself. Her counsel argued that journalists had a higher responsibility to ensure accurate dissemination of information, and that the petitioner’s right to privacy would extend to the right to privacy of her immediate family as well.The DSG on the other hand contended that the best case for the petitioners would be in a plea of defamation, which would be in the nature of a right in personam, only applicable against individual entities, requiring a "full-fledged trial".Senior Counsel appearing for Republic TV, one of the media houses accused in the writ petition, also submitted that the cause of action raised may at best be in the form of a case for defamation, but that the petitioners could not be permitted to short-circuit their way to a writ court without testing out the appropriate remedy.Counsel submitted that the petitioner’s husband had already initiated criminal proceedings against their reporters for other reports on him, and that the police had questioned members of the news channel pertaining to the same, after which one of the allegedly offending tweets had been deleted. It was argued that some of the articles exhibited were more than 3 years old, and an omnibus writ petition seeking blanket orders restraining all the impleaded media houses from covering stories on the petitioners husband, suffered from misjoinder and ought to be dismissed.Counsel for respondent digital-media outlet Banglar Barta submitted that the media could not be restrained from raising questions pertaining to the movements of the petitioner, who was a public figure.Not only being the wife of a politician but also being a partner in his businesses; can such a person be immune from questions by the media? the Counsel asked.Matter has been listed for further hearing on 12th October.Case No: WPA/22990/2023Case: Rujira Banerjee v Union Of India & Ors

Foreigner Can’t Scuttle Citizens' Rights Under Article 19: Centre To Calcutta HC In Plea By Abhishek Banerjee’s Wife Against Media Coverage

Srinjoy Das

Tags