Citing free speech, SC questions FIR against Editors Guild on Manipur report

The bench that had on the last date of hearing said that it did not want to be bundled with petitions seeking quashing, however, said on Friday that it intended to consider Guild’s prayer to quash the FIR against it and directed the complainant, on whose complaint the FIR was registered, to file its response to the request.

“Since one of the reliefs which has been sought is for quashing the FIR on the ground that the reading of the complaint does not disclose any of the offences which are sought to be alleged, we grant a period of two weeks to file a counter affidavit,” the bench, also comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Manoj Misra, ordered.

The CJI also expressed displeasure over the Manipur HC entertaining a PIL in the matter and said “the manner in which the PIL is entertained by the Chief Justice of the High Court, let me not as the head of the family say much more. Surely there are more pressing matters to be entertained than these kinds of PILs”.

The petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution has sought quashing of the FIR or in the alternative, transferring the case to the Delhi High Court.

Pressing the prayer for transfer, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan appearing for the petitioner body said a PIL had also been filed before the Manipur High Court and the Guild had been allowed time to file reply.

He submitted that besides threats to personal safety, there were also threats to lawyers. Divan had earlier submitted that the Guild had sent its members to Manipur at the request of the Indian Army.

Appearing for the complainant on whose complaint the FIR was registered, Senior Advocate S Guru Krishnakumar said the entire report reflected a “Kuki perspective” of what had happened. He also questioned the submission about safety concerns saying the Editors Guild team had visited the state and roamed around to draw up its report without facing any security threats.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said “the contents of the report will have no bearing on the question whether the Manipur High Court can hear it or not. Content may be A, content may be B, content may be right, content may be wrong. That does not mean that Your Lorships may perhaps not trust a High Court which is otherwise functioning and subject to orders passed,…Second, it would be wrong to say that there is a complete paralysis of the legal system there”.

He added that if the court decides to transfer the matter, then logically even that PIL will also have to be transferred in which case the petitioners in that matter will also have to be heard.

Mehta said the Guild’s counsel can appear virtually before the Manipur HC.

Krishnakumar also said the complainants would not press the complaint if the Guild withdrew its report. The report he added, is “adding to the problem, further instigating things”.

Responding to this, Divan said “there are counter views which have come and we have put it on the same weblink saying look these are the counter responses. So, people have a view, people have a counter view, you can make up your mind. It’s on the same webpage”.

The CJI then asked Krishnakumar whether it would be sufficient that the Guild puts his clients’ perspective also on their webpage. “Suppose they put your view as a counter narrative on the web link?”

“But what about the damage which has been done by what they have done?,” responded the senior counsel.

The bench then asked him to “tell how any of these offences are made out by this report? You say Section 153A. Let’s see how it’s made out…What’s happening? Assuming that they are entitled to put forth a viewpoint, it is a report. Where do you get this S 153A? You have said Section 200. It deals with a declaration which is submitted to a court which is a false declaration. Therefore it is subject to 195 CrPC. Where was the declaration made to the court? It’s a report”

“We are putting you on notice, we are entering the quashing jurisdiction,” the CJI told Krishnakumar who sought time to file his response.

“But you have to look at your complaint as it stands. Forget the response. You have to read your complaint as it stands and make out and establish that the ingredients of the offence have been made out in my complaint. We have to proceed at this on a demurrer that all the allegations contained in the complaint are true. Their defence is not to be considered at this time….”, said the CJI.

Krishnakuar submitted that “a complaint or an FIR is not an encyclopaedia of all facts. Investigation has to take place. At the end of the day, my complaint to the authorities is to please investigate it, go into the correctness of these claims”.

But the CJI said “your complaint doesn’t make out even a whisper of the ingredients of the offence…your entire complaint is a counter narrative of the government…they have said well this is what you have not done. You have thereafter put a counter narrative”.

Intervening, Mehta said the court may not go into the question of quashing and instead transfer it to Delhi HC. He added that the court quashing the matter would invite hundreds of similar requests. “Your Lordships are inviting hundreds of petitions under Article 32. That’s my worry”.

“But look at it Mr Solicitor. The Army writes to the Editors Guild of India. The Army says there was partisan reporting. Please come and make a proper report. They go to the ground, they intervene and they submit a report. They may be right, wrong, whatever. But that’s what free speech is all about,” said the CJI.

The SG said that’s why he suggested transferring it to Delhi. “If it’s quashed, it may have repercussions. Your Lordships know the delicacy of the situation. Let the protection (granted by the court to the members) continue…. But kindly mention that this will have no reflection on the HC of Manipur”.