Legal
Swarajya Staff
Sep 12, 2023, 08:26 AM | Updated 08:27 AM IST
Save & read from anywhere!
Bookmark stories for easy access on any device or the Swarajya app.
The Editors Guild of India (EGI) informed the Supreme Court on Monday (11 September) that its team had visited Manipur on the invitation of the Army to make an "objective assessment" of the "unethical and ex-parte reporting" by the local media.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the EGI, stated before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud that the Guild "did not volunteer" to go to Manipur.
"It is the Army that requested us. We got a letter from the Army,” Sibal said.
The Chief Justice expressed confusion over the Army's decision to involve the EGI in Manipur.
"They wanted us to make an objective assessment of what is happening on the ground… We published our report on 2 September. On 3 September night, we were prosecuted for offences under the Indian Penal Code. The Chief Minister also makes statements against us… How can we be prosecuted for publication of a report,” Sibal asked the apex Court, reports The Hindu.
The Chief Justice highlighted to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is representing the Manipur government, that the entire First Information Report (FIR) in the case was based on a report by the EGI.
“It is a report after all. The basic question he [Sibal] is arguing is they have only done a report that may be a matter of their [EGI’s] subjective opinion… This is not a case of somebody on the ground having committed an offence… They have published a report,” the Chief Justice said.
Sibal, representing the EGI, requested that the Delhi High Court be allowed to handle the plea to quash the FIRs instead of the Manipur High Court.
The Chief Justice agreed to examine this request and scheduled a hearing on the matter for 15 September.
In the meantime, the apex court extended its previous order protecting the journalists from arrest, which was issued on 6 September.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice asked SG Mehta if the State would be willing to agree to transfer the case to the Delhi High Court as a one-off measure.
“We will not quash the FIRs here… but we will examine whether such a plea could be heard by the Delhi High Court,” Chief Justice Chandrachud said.
Initially, Mehta objected to transferring the case to Delhi, claiming that the EGI was attempting to turn it into a "national, political issue".
He questioned why the petitioners were insisting on Delhi instead of the neighbouring states of Manipur.
He emphasised that the Manipur High Court was functioning regularly and allowed virtual hearings for cases.
He said mentions about the Chief Minister was a deliberate ploy to make it political.
In response, Sibal argued that going to Manipur would be "hazardous" for his clients.
He highlighted the recent incident of vandalism against the property of two lawyers who had represented Professor Kham Khan Suan Hausing.
“Allow us to prosecute the matter here in Delhi," Sibal urged.
The FIRs have accused Seema Mustafa, Sanjay Kapoor, Seema Guha, and Bharat Bhushan, who are members of EGI, with various offences under the Indian Penal Code. These include defamation, defiling places of worship, and criminal conspiracy.
The complaints, which led to the registration of the FIRs, alleged that the EGI report contained “incorrect and false statements”.
The EGI defended its report, stating that it was compiled by a fact-finding team that conducted extensive travel and interviews with victims and eyewitnesses from 7 to 10 August.
It had voiced serious apprehensions about the right to free speech and personal liberty of the journalists after hearing Manipur Chief Minister Biren Singh’s statements on 4 September in a press conference following the release of the report.
“The Chief Minister said in a press conference he had personally held that the EGI was stoking passions and making provocative statements...Consider the particular dimensions now with the Chief Minister saying this...” senior advocate Shyam Divan, also for the EGI, had submitted in a hearing on 6 September.