The boundaries of press freedom and free speech seem to be forever shifting across the eight curbs woven into Article 19 (1) (a) which guarantees freedom of speech to journalists and all citizens.
A division bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Riyaz Chagla granted relief to Republic TV anchor Arnab Goswami by staying two FIRs against him for making allegedly inflammatory statements on the Palghar lynching on April 19 and gathering of migrants outside the Bandra railway station after being misled by some elements about food distribution and trains being arranged for them to return to their home states.
The judges observed that no prima facie case had been made out. They went on to observe that Indian democracy was over 70 years old so that freedom of speech could not be stifled during a debate on television which throttled the people's right to know.
This case is startlingly different from how the government handled the news agency PTI which retweeted the Indian ambassador to Beijing's tweets allegedly saying the Chinese had to pull back to the LAC which was seen as contradicting Prime Minister Narendra Modi's statements that "nobody had made incursions into Indian territory nor did we intrude into anybody else's territory."
A second news flash from PTI quoted ambassador Vikram Misri's quote tweet saying; "China has to stop the practice of transgressing and trying to erect structures on the Indian side of the LAC at Ladakh" at 8.30 p.m. on June 26. This may have roused the hackles of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) against PTI which can be seen as simply doing its job by informing the people who have a right to know under Article 19 (1)(a) .
On Saturday, the Prasar Bharati Corporation which runs Doordarshan and All India Radio told mediapersons it was sending a strong letter to PTI ahead of its board meeting expressing "deep displeasure on anti-national reporting by PTI."
An official spokesman said PTI's alleged "anti-national reporting no longer made it possible to support it" with huge annual fees running into crores of rupees. "Prasar Bharati is now reviewing its relationship with PTI and a final decision will be conveyed soon."
The point here is if PTI which has never been seen as anti-government can be called "anti-national" for quoting the Chinese and Indian ambassadors to inform the people about the Chinese adventures on the LAC, freedom of the media is perhaps a casualty. Of course, the PTI case never went to court so the judiciary had no role to play.
The executive did seek an order from the Supreme Court on its circular that the media should not publish any COVID-19 news without prior government approval. The apex court refused to oblige but quite unnecessarily launched into a diatribe about fake news although this issue was never raised.
There is no doubt that the Supreme Court has stayed multiple FIRs against News18 anchor Amish Devgan for making comments on the Sufi saint Khawaja Muinuddin Chisti. But the West Bengal government under Mamata Banerjee is seen as opposing Narendra Modi though the staying of these multiple FIRs is a pure question of law devoid of political connotations.
The apex court also took a few minutes to grant immediate relief to OpIndia founders Nupur J Sharma, her husband and also its editor Rahul Roushan for three allegedly vindictive FIRs lodged by the Trinamool Congress government in West Bengal. This proves at least those journalists who are harassed do get relief when they petition the Supreme Court.
Ever since the BJP government imposed the lockdown on March 25, 55 journalists have been threatened or booked for reporting on COVID-19 contrary to the rules. Twenty-two FIRs were filed against journalists during the lockdown. So, the moot question which the Supreme Court has yet to decide is whether Article 19 (1) (a) which guarantees free speech overrides the gag orders imposed by the state under the Disaster Management Act and other laws during an emergency or pandemic? This question needs to be answered because Article 19 (1) (a) forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution which Parliament cannot tamper with.
Among the 22 FIRs registered, Ashwini Saini from Mandi district in Sundernagar sub division of Himachal Pradesh alleged migrants were not getting sufficient rations which culminated in the SDM of Sundernagar, Rahul Chauhan, filing an FIR against him for publishing fake news. The SDM allegedly filed the FIR under the provisions of the Disaster Management Act.
The first report was filed on April 8 whereas a second report about brick kilns functioning during the lockdown was filed on April 13, according to unverified information from the internet. The police closed the brick kilns but also booked Saini under the IPC and seized his car under the Motor Vehicles Act for flouting lockdown rules in Himachal Pradesh.
Whether reporting news in public interest such as the Chinese aggression can be called "anti-national" because it is inconvenient to the PMO or the government when such news is being published by the foreign media is a moot question. This is because at least a few journalists like Arnab Goswami who, quite commendably, places the nation before everything else, do succeed in the Supreme Court vindicating free speech. But during shifting climes and uncertain times of this pandemic, the nation does want to know whether China is occupying Indian territory in Ladakh between Fingers 4 and 8, thwarting our braveheart soldiers from venturing to defend our territory. Or whether after exporting the COVID-19 to the world, the Chinese succeed in imposing their versions of sovereignty and free speech on India.
The writer holds a Ph.D in Media Law and is a journalist-cum-lawyer of the Bombay High Court.
