"How Dare He Says? What is Article 32 For?" CJI Bobde While Issuing Contempt Notice To Maharashtra Assembly Secy. In Arnab Goswami Case
story
The Supreme Court on Friday issued contempt notice to the Secretary of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly for sending a letter to Arnab Goswami, the editor-in-chief of Republic TV, allegedly intimidating him for approaching the court against the privilege notice issued by the Assembly.The top court also ordered that Goswami should not be arrested in the pursuance of the privilege notice...
Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
The Supreme Court on Friday issued contempt notice to the Secretary of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly for sending a letter to Arnab Goswami, the editor-in-chief of Republic TV, allegedly intimidating him for approaching the court against the privilege notice issued by the Assembly.
The top court also ordered that Goswami should not be arrested in the pursuance of the privilege notice issued by the Assembly against him.
"Your Lordships had wanted an affidavit, I have filed the same. Something serious has happened", began senior advocate Harish Salve.
"The affidavit is by his wife? He is in jail for this?", asked CJ S. A. Bobde.
"For something discussed in the assembly. Now he is being questioned for moving this court. The assembly has not entered appearance before Your Lordships. And they are saying that he could not have produced its show cause notice before the court", replied Mr. Salve.
"Over and over, he has been harassed. There is a letter from the secretary of the Maharashtra Vidhan Sabha Sachivalaya which reads that the proceedings in the House are confidential in nature, that until the speaker gives order, the notice could not be used in the court of law and that the same is prohibited under the relevant rules...it further avers that the office had sought a reply for the breach of privilege but the petitioner has not given any written response", advance Mr Salve.
"What is this, Dr Singhvi?", the CJ sought to know from senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for the state of Maharashtra.
"Who has written the letter? Are they a party here?", asked the CJ.
"The Vidhan Sabha is a party here, but they have not entered appearance", he was told by Mr Salve.
"I have heard of only one such precedent before where in the 1940s, a letter from a prisoner was withheld by the superintendent of police and the Chief Justice of the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court, Justice Vivian Bose, issued contempt against the said superintendent, observing that a letter to the CJ could not have been withheld by him", noted the CJ.
"This is very serious! You can't proceed like this! Make a proper application", said the CJ to Mr. Salve.
"Please give me five minutes. We want a stay. ('What is happening to you?Nothing', said the CJ)... this is a matter of utmost seriousness. Your Lordships had noted that case after case has come to be filed against the petitioner. Please look at the discussion in the assembly. I had said this in the Bombay High Court and I'm saying it here now that a constitutional court needs to see the reality and not just the smokescreen", argued Mr. Salve.
"The allegations are of using sharp language against the CM in connection with the suicidal death of Sushant Singh Rajput. This is not privilege of the Assembly. Is there a difference between privilege of the House and privilege of the members acting as the House? It is alleged that he was mentioning the names of the CM, cabinet ministers and other officials as a single-worded salutation! This means that he was calling them by name and not addressing them as 'hon'ble'!", he continued.
"Allegation is of violation of the extraordinary powers of Arnab Goswami. He has no powers!", urged Mr. Salve, reading from the record of the Assembly.
"He doesn't have, but it is being said that he has violated the powers", clarified the CJ.
"I don't know what he is supposed to be violating", commented Mr. Salve.
Reading further, he pointed out that it was alleged that "dust was deliberately thrown by the TV channel in holding a discussion" so far as some Rajya Sabha MPs and national party leader Sharad Pawar are concerned, that a "mockery of democracy" was made out, and there was a mention of "credibility" in connection with the exercise of the the freedom of speech.
"Unrelated issues were raised and the whole thing was discussed. One member raises question of suicide of the architect. It was discussed that an architect was engaged by the studio of Republic TV and even after the complete execution of the work, he was not given Rs. 80 lakh, owing to which he committed suicide...Actually, there was some dispute regarding quality. He was in fact given 5.5 crores...the Home Minister makes a statement. 'There has been an FIR and an elaborate enquiry is to be held'. An assurance is given in the Assembly. 'Let the concerned accused person be immediately taken into custody'", advanced Mr. Salve.
"Dr. Nitin Raut is entitled to state that if an offence has been committed, someone should be arrested?", ventured the CJ.
Mr. Salve replied that the police had investigated the matter and had come to the conclusion that nothing was clear and accordingly a summary report was filed- "It is for the system to deal with it. The home minister cannot do the investigation of a crime. It is the job of the police, independently of any political involvement. The correct thing to do would be to file a protest petition before the magistrate to reopen the case"
"This is a good argument. Make it before the relevant court", observe the CJ. Mr Salve replied that he was going to do so at 3 PM today.
"They themselves are not appearing before the court! And instead they're asking how dare you produce the notice before the court?", he urged.
"We want to hear the legal position. What can happen if a party is stopped from accessing the court?", reflected the CJ
"It is a case of contempt of court", replied Mr Salve. "We need assistance on this aspect. We are not just on the warring parties...now the matter has gone beyond", observed the CJ.
"The issue of suicide was actively heard yesterday...", began Mr. Salve.
"We are not interested in that. Certain people are threatening a person- 'How did you go to the court, how did you produce the notice before the court'... What is this? Who are these people? We are on the access to court! Please assist us. We need an independent counsel as an Amicus Curiae", said the CJ.
When the name of SG Tushar Mehta was advanced in this context, the CJ commented, "The SG may suggest. All of you also suggest"
Dr Singhvi attempted to dissuade the court from the participation of interested parties in the process. "The matter is between Arnab Goswami and the state of Maharashtra. The SG could help", suggested Mr. Salve.
"The SG can assist, but that will bring him unnecessarily in the fray. There are allegations galore these days! Somebody says something and people come up with a 'for' and 'against'", said the CJ. Names of senior advocates Arvind Datar, Raju Ramachandran and K. V. Vishwanathan were suggested by the counsel as Amicus.
"I may get relief from the Bombay High Court today or tomorrow. But the assembly may say that you were warned, you have abused us, so spend the Diwali in jail. Please protect us from this", prayed Mr. Salve.
"You dare not come to the Supreme Court if you take the threat seriously", said the CJ.
"I can't speak in respect of the privilege matter..", Dr. Singhvi sought to submit.
"Why? You are appearing for the state, which includes the legislature, the executive and the judiciary!", noted the CJ.
"I will be trespassing...I will be exceeding my brief without instructions. These are sensitive matters of jurisdiction", said Dr. Singhvi.
"We understand that in law, the 'state' is to include the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. You can't say that you can say nothing", commented the CJ.
"Yes, in the organic sense it does. But in a specific case of a privilege... From Keshav Singh onwards, there are 7-judge, 9-judge decisions on the domain of the legislature and the judiciary. ('We are aware of the domains', said the CJ)... Your Lordships may appoint an independent Amicus Curiae. Please don't ask us...The matter of immediate relief has been argued day-to-day in the High Court. Papers don't suggest any action by the legislature as, according to Mr. Salve's own affidavit, the privilege committee has just been constituted. Your Lordships had said that it is for the committee to act in such cases. So the precipitate immediacy is only of the High Court", submitted Dr. Singhvi.
"We are on the serious question of what the letter means. I have never seen such a letter ever, particularly in connection with this court, that too in a privilege case. It is difficult to ignore! And it comes from your officer...", stated the CJ.
"He's not my officer...ideally, any such communication should come from the privilege committee...", Dr. Singhvi sought to suggest.
"Look at his conditions of service- you are paying his salary, you are appointing him. He is broadly your officer...even the privilege committee can't say what he has said! No authority in the country can penalise somebody for coming to the court! What is Article 32 for! How dare this officer say all this! This is in the teeth of Article 32! 32 itself is a Fundamental Right! I've never seen an attitude like this!", said the CJ sternly.
"You must convey your feelings strongly. We are telling you this as an officer of the court appearing for the Maharashtra state. You are senior enough to know that there is nothing personal here", he continued.
"Your Lordships, please deal with this with the gravity it deserves. Despite being respondent 2 here, he has the courage to write this letter! The court must take suo motu cognisance of this and issue contempt notice. This is the most serious case of obstruction of justice! An officer who is paid out of the taxpayers' money has the courage to say this!", vehemently argued Mr. Salve.
The bench then proceeded to dictate its order. The bench noted that by letter dated October 13, the Secretary, Vidhan Sabha Sachivalaya, who is respondent no. 2 in the present proceedings before the SC, has written to the petitioner, stating that the latter was informed that the proceedings of the House are confidential in nature and despite this, he has presented the show-cause notice issued to him before the Supreme Court on October 8. The letter further read that the petitioner, who did not have permission of the Speaker of the Maharashtra Assembly in this behalf, has knowingly breached orders of the Speaker and the confidentiality of the House.
"This is an unprecedented statement and has the tendency to bring the dispensation of justice into disrepute. It amounts to a direct interference in the administration of justice. The clear intention of the author of the letter is to intimidate the petitioner because he moved the Supreme Court and to threaten him with a penalty for doing so. Respondent no. 2 would be well advised to understand that the right to approach the court under Article 32 is itself a Fundamental Right. There is no doubt that if a citizen of India is deterred in any way from moving the court in exercise of his right under Article 32, it would amount to a serious interference in the administration of justice in the country", observed the CJ in the order.
"The respondent was served with a notice on October 5, but appearance has not been entered. Instead, they issued the letter in question to the petitioner. We put this letter to Dr. Singhvi, for the state, who expressed his inability to offer any explanation or justification for it. We, therefore, issue notice to Respondent no. 2 to show cause as to why he should not be punished for contempt of court in exercise of its powers under Article 129", the bench directed.
Making the notice returnable in two weeks, the CJ orally observed that the contemner would be required to remain present in the court on that day in pursuance of the notice.
"In the meanwhile, the petitioner is not to be arrested in pursuance of the present proceedings impugned here. Mr. Arvind Datar is appointed as Amicus Curiae in the matter", it was further ordered.
Mr. Salve also sought the leave of the Court to amend his plea to incorporate the Union of India as a party. "In the Arunachal Pradesh case, where there was a constitutional machinery problem, and the Speaker had refused to comply, the court had impleaded the Union of India", he advanced.
The bench allowed the request, issuing notice to the AG in the matter