'Complaint Against Editors Guild Report Is Govt's Counter-Narrative' : Supreme Court Extends Protection For EGI Members From Manipur Police FIR

In the petition challenging FIRs lodged against the members of the Editors Guild of India (EGI) over a fact-finding report published by them about the ethnic violence in Manipur, the Supreme Court today orally remarked that the complaint filed against the EGI members was "a counter-narrative of the government". The Court further orally remarked that even if the EGI's report is assumed to be false, making false statements in an article, by itself, was not an offence under Section 153A of the IPC.The Supreme Court has granted two weeks to the Manipur police and the complainant to file their response in the matter. Till then, the Court extended the interim order granting protection to the EGI journalists from coercive actions based on the FIR. The writ petition, jointly filed by journalists Seema Guha, Sanjay Kapoor, Bharat Bhushan, and the President of the Editors Guild of India was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra. Making An Incorrect Statement In A Report Not An Offence Under Section 153A IPC: Supreme CourtSenior Advocate Guru Krishnakumar, appearing for the complainant, submitted that if the EGI withdrew their report, the complainant will not press the complaint. He said–"There is a committee appointed by my lords. Some good work is being done. This kind of report is aggravating the problem. There was relaxation of curfew. It had to be reinforced after this report. This is instigating things. If they withdraw this, there would be an end of the problem."To this, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the EGI, argued that the weblink of the EGI has published counter-views to the report.Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Manipur, objected to the Supreme Court entertaining the petition and said that the petitioners should avail of the remedy before the High Court.Suggesting a solution to the issue, the CJI asked Senior Advocate Krishnakumar if it would help if the counter view of the complainant was also put on the web link. Krishnakumar responded by stating–"What about the damage which has been done by them?"At this juncture, the CJI asked him to show how any of the offences mentioned in the complaint were being made out. The CJI stated–"What is happening? They are entitled to put forth a viewpoint. Where do you get this? 153A? 200? Let us see each section. Section 200 IPC – it deals with using a declaration which is submitted before the court, which is a false declaration. Where was the declaration made to the court? This was a report."Krishnakumar stated that the complainant will submit a response. However, the CJI said–"You have to look at the complaint as it stands. Forget the response. You have to establish that the ingredients of the offence are being made out in my complaint. We have to proceed on a demurrer that all these allegations made in the complaint are true."To this, Krishnakumar responded that an FIR or the complaint could not be treated as an encyclopaedia and that an investigation had to take place.At this juncture, the CJI differentiated between the current case with other cases and said–"You have to show us in a case like this your complaint – does it even make out a whisper of the ingredients of the offence?...Your entire complaint is a counter-narrative of the government... You have basically put forth a counter-narrative, assuming that what they have said is false. Making a false statement in an article is not an offence under Section 153A. It may be incorrect. Incorrect things are reported all across the country every day. Will you prosecute journalists for 153A?".At this juncture, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta intervened and said that the Court may not delve deep into the issue of the merits of the complaint and suggested that only the petitioners' prayer to approach the Delhi High Court (instead of the Manipur High Court) be considered. Eventually, the bench granted the respondents time to file a response. However, before concluding the matter, the CJI pointed out that the EGI visited the place at the invitation of the Indian Army."Mr SG, the Army writes to the Editors Guild of India. The Army says that there is partisan reporting, please come and make a proper report. They go to the ground. They may be right or wrong but that is about free speech is all about".Highlighting the delicacy of the situation, the SG requested the bench to refrain from making comments on the merits of the case. He also urged the bench to clarify that any order passed by it allowing the petitioners to approach the Delhi High Court will not be construed as a reflection on the Manipur High Court. At this point, CJI Chandrachud expressed disapproval of the manner in which the Manipur High Court recently entertained a PIL against the EGI report."The manner in which that PIL is entertained by the Chief Justice of the High Court...let me not say much more as the head of the family. But...

'Complaint Against Editors Guild Report Is Govt's Counter-Narrative' : Supreme Court Extends Protection For EGI Members From Manipur Police FIR

Padmakshi Sharma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Padmakshi Sharma

'Complaint Against Editors Guild Report Is Govt's Counter-Narrative' : Supreme Court Extends Protection For EGI Members From Manipur Police FIR

Padmakshi Sharma

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Padmakshi Sharma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers