Supreme Court Extends Interim Protection to Arnab Goswami in Connection With FIR Against Him for Defaming Sonia Gandhi
"The accused said his fundamental duties were violated. That he was not allowed to use his mobile phone and that he was not allowed to be involved in the journalistic process. He was asked a consolidated way of questions. Is this harassment? It is not," Sibal submitted.
New Delhi, May 11: The Supreme Court on Monday extended till further hearing the interim protection granted to Republic TV editor Arnab Goswami in connection with several FIRs registered against him for allegedly defaming Congress interim president Sonia Gandhi.
A bench headed by Justice Dr DY Chandrachud and also comprising Justice MR Shah reserved its order on a plea seeking investigation in the matter by a probe agency other than Mumbai Police. The apex court, had on April 24, said that no coercive action should be taken against Goswami for three weeks during which he can seek anticipatory bail and other reliefs. Supreme Court Grants 3 Weeks of Interim Protection to Arnab Goswami While Hearing Pleas Challenging FIRs Against The Journalist.
During the hearing today, advocate Harish Salve appearing for Goswami told the top court that the investigation in connection with the FIRs against his client was not being conducted in a proper manner. "There are already a slew of FIRs against the petitioner for his show. The nature of the investigation in the matter has clearly shown that this is a tactic against the petitioner," Salve told the apex court.
"The police is interrogating Goswami for over 12 hours. Does the FIRs in the matter need so much time for the interrogation of my client? It does not. He was asked about the details of his editorial team and content by the police," he added.
Raising questions about the mindset of Mumbai Police, Salve said, the investigation is not going in a proper manner and asked the top court to look into the matter. On the other hand, senior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for Maharashtra government said that there are unique ways to deal with investigation in different cases.
"The accused said his fundamental duties were violated. That he was not allowed to use his mobile phone and that he was not allowed to be involved in the journalistic process. He was asked a consolidated way of questions. Is this harassment? It is not," Sibal submitted.