Supreme Court begins to hear petition filed by Arnab Goswami.

Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah are hearing the petition.

#ArnabGoswamiAttacked #SoniaGandhi #SupremeCourt #Palghar @republic

Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi with Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar representing Arnab Goswami.

Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal for State of Maharashtra.

Manish Singhvi for Rajasthan and Vivek Tankha for Chhattisgarh @KapilSibal @VTankha #ArnabGoswami #ArnabGoswamiAttacked #SoniaGandhi

Senior Counsel Rohatgi begins making his submissions, starts with taking the Court through the details of the recent #Palghar lynching incident.

It was during a live debate on Palghar that Goswami made the alleged defamatory statements against Congress President Sonia Gandhi

Former AG Mukul Rohatgi argues that Goswami deals with questions of public interest and questioned the inaction of police in light of the Palghar incident.

#ArnabGoswamiAttacked #ArnabGoswami #ArnabAttacked

Rohatgi says, Goswami asked some questions pertaining to the silence of Congress President on killing of the Sadhus and had added that if persons from minority community were killed, @INCIndia would be first to raise the issue

#ArnabGoswamiAttacked #ArnabGoswami #ArnabAttacked

It was after this program that aired in April 21 that a number of Police complaints were filed against Goswami in Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Telangana, and J&K, Rohatgi to SC

#ArnabGoswamiAttacked #ArnabGoswami #SupremeCourt

Rohatgi points out most of these States where FIRs are lodges are Governed by the Congress.

Rohatgi quotes and reads out certain tweets put out by some Congress leaders and workers.

#ArnabGoswamiAttacked #ArnabGoswami #SupremeCourt
#Rohatgi #MukulRohatgi

Rohatgi argues that a case if defamation can be filed only by the person aggrieved and not by someone else.

Rohatgi (in picture) continues, says most of the complaints are identical and all invoke same provisions of the law, i.e., Section 153, 153A, 500, 504, 295A
#MukulRohatgi

Rohatgi argues that in the debate program in question, Goswami is in fact talking about peace and questioning the Govt in Maharashtra for not acting and highlighting the Police inaction in the killings.

Rohatgi says, "there is no religious angle"

#ArnabGoswami #Rohatgi

Mukul Rohatgi narrates the incident of an attack on Goswami and his wife in the wee hours of April 22;

says it was a "murderous attack" and an attack on freedom of speech

#ArnabGoswami #Rohatgi #ArnabGoswamiAttacked

Rohatgi says this is an assault on A.19(1)(a); Goswami asked provocative questions regarding silence of the Congress president after killing of Sadhus and due to a turmoil in the Hindu community owing to the incident.

This is the nature of the dispute

#ArnabGoswamiAttacked

Rohatgi says that the idea behind multiple FIRs is to muzzle the freedom of the press.

Cites precedents to show that there can be no FIR in a case of defamation, nor can there be multiple FIRs with same cause of action.

Rohatgi says his client (Arnab) should be protected with respect to these FIRs as well as any other complaints that may be filed on the Program of April 21, 2020

#MukulRohatgi #SupremeCourt #ArnabGoswami

Rohatgi says he is grateful for the natter to be taken up today.

Rohtagi concludes.

Kapil Sibal begins making his submissions for State of Maharashtra, reads out the alleged defamatory statements made by Arnab Goswami on air in April 21.

Whether statements fall within the purview of free speech, says there cannot be Article 32 petitions on "fake free speech"

Sibal argues that Goswami has tried to ignite communal tension by pitting Hindus against the minorities. @KapilSibal #SupremeCourt #ArnabGoswami #ArnabGoswamiAttacked

Sibal says it is a settled position that once an FIR us lodged, and if on its reading an offence is made out then it cannot be quashed.

If someone has filed a complaint, police will investigate and find out if it can be prosecuted, @KapilSibal argues

#SupremeCourt #Palghar

Sibal says, clearly there are offences made out in these FIRs.

So how can there be an Article 32 plea for quashing of the FIRs?

These cases may be clubbed, but not quashed.

Sibal argues that the specific instance that Goswami is claiming Freedom of Speech falls under the reasonable restrictions to A.19(1)(a).

#ArnabGoswamiAttacked #ArnabGoswami @RahulGandhi @KapilSibal #SoniaGandhi

Sibal: What is the problem if Congress workers/leaders have filed the FIRs.

Even BJP workers file FIRs and @RahulGandhi appears in defamation cases filed against him.

Why can't Goswami appear, @KapilSibal asks

#ArnabGoswamiAttacked #ArnabGoswami #SoniaGandhi

Justice DY Chandrachud suggests that there may be a ground for invoking A 32 here given that multiple FIRs have been filed on same cause of action

Sibal: The complaints may all be clubbed but cannot be for granting protection.

What if the Police decides to add S.124A later?

Manish Singhvi for Rajasthan begins his submissions; says S.153A & 153B are non bailable offences and adds there is a clear prima facie case against Arnab Goswami under these provisions

Singhvi says that the context in which the alleged defamatory statements were made has religious connotations and a prima facie case is made out.

There can be consolidation of cases, but investigation cannot be stopped.

Vivek Tankha for Chhattisgarh argues that this is a case of misusing broadcasting licence.

@VTankha #ArnabGoswami #SupremeCourt #Palghar