It’s time to err on the side of caution

Satya Prakash

THE role of media in making a democracy survive and thrive has been an undisputed proposition. The recent Supreme Court verdict in Arnab Goswami's case lends further credence to the idea.

"India's freedoms will rest safe as long as journalists can speak to power without being chilled by a threat of reprisal," a Bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud said even as it dismissed Goswami's plea for transfer of his cases to the CBI.

The verdict sends out clear messages to journalists, the state and society at large as the Supreme Court attempts to strike a proper balance between media freedom and accountability.

First, the top court makes it clear that journalists don't enjoy any extra privileges and their right to free speech is no higher than that of a common citizen. While exercising his/her right under Article 19(1)(a), a journalist is not immune from an investigation into an FIR arising out of his/her work. The right to free speech is not absolute and is subject to the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).

The court refused to transfer his case to CBI, saying, "The displeasure of an accused person about the manner in which the investigation proceeds or an unsubstantiated allegation of a conflict of interest against the police conducting the investigation must not derail the legitimate course of law..."

Second, the verdict protects media against abuse of process of law by the state by quashing multiples FIRs arising out the same cause of action. "This will destroy the freedom of the citizen to know of the affairs of governance in the nation and the right of the journalist to ensure an informed society," it said, disapproving of the manner in which numerous FIRs were lodged in several states on the basis of identical allegations arising out of the same TV show.

It's time to err on the side of caution. As part of the institution, journalists play a vital role in informing, educating and entertaining their viewers and readers. They also set agenda for debate and act as watchdog for democracy. The verdict offers a sort of assurance to the society that in case either a journalist or the state transgresses the boundaries drawn by law, the judiciary is there to set them right. So far as media is concerned, the message is loud and clear: journalists are not immune from prosecution for what they publish or broadcast.

from The Tribune https://ift.tt/3egQUcC