The matter was being heard through video conferencing so far and will be taken up through physical hearing today considering the voluminous proceedings.
Sr Adv Kapil Sibal appearing for the #MumbaiPolice had made a statement that no coercive action will be taken against the #Republic channel, owner, manager and related persons.
Sr Adv Mundargi: We are here to challenge the FIR registered. On the last occasion, apart from that, there are several IAs filed in the matter. One of the IA was by us for transfer of investigation.
At that time, an objection was raised how can accused ask for transfer.
Mundargi: I started with that IA because another petition by Hansa Research also asking for the transfer is pending before the Court. In that plea they claimed that a certain officer was coercing them to incriminate...
Mundargi: Let me give a brief background. There was an incident in April 2020 by two sadhus and several FIRs came to be filed. This matter was taken up till the #SupremeCourt and there is also a breach of privilege motion petition case pending.
Mundargi: Now on October 6, an FIR was filed. On October 8, the Commissioner of Mumbai Police gives an interview that the present channel, the present accused person, they called it Republic channel, but it owned by ARG Outlier..
Mundargi: In this interview it was stated that @BARCIndia was involved and this channel is involved.
In the FIR, the present company is not even mentioned and this particular FIR is against another channel, to which we are not concerned.
Justice Shinde: Nothing is passing through our minds. You can say it is passing through their minds.
In the first hearing, it was argued that Section 41A notice will be issued to them and they will co-operate with the investigation.
Justice Shinde: So after that statement, thereafter the chargesheet was filed. And then Sr Adv Ponda pointed out a clause from the chargesheet that the chargesheet named the “maalak, chaalak and sambandhit vyakti”
Mundargi: On October 15 FIR was filed by the Raigad Police in a case which had been closed by them in an abetment to suicide case.
Thereafter that FIR was challenged before this Court.
Mundargi: On November 4, they arrested #ArnabGoswami in that matter.
I am not going in detail in that matter. But there was no judicial order to re-open that investigation. The man was unaware and brought before the court.
Mundargi: If they want to keep criminal prosecutions open, then you do not name the accused and then when a petition is filed to challenge that you say he is not named accused so the petition is not maintainable.
The Bench is being assisted with the volumes. There is some confusion with the pagination of the pleadings.
Mundargi refers to the page no. 21 of the vol 1 and reads out the text in Marathi.
Mundargi: There is a judgment of this court in which it was held that the criminal procedure does not have anything which shows suspects in the chargesheet.
Mundargi: On page 1388, you will see Priya Mukharjee, Ranjeet Walter, Sivasubramanian, Mundelkar etc.. They have got anticipatory bail from the sessions court.
All these were shown as suspects in the chargesheets.
Mundargi: This showing the people as suspects is not an innocent act which the prosecution wants to place before the Court that they are only suspects.
Mundargi: Whether we are named or not named, the investigation which has taken a peculiar angle, in the chargesheet they are suspects they are arrested and they are shown as wanted accused.
Mundargi: It is the innocent act of the prosecution, that they are targeting the petitioner no 2 and he is not named (#ArnabGoswami). They can come at anytime and take any of them away while naming them as accused.
Mundargi: The remand application filed in December 13, they were named as wanted accused. In the chargesheet they become suspects. Please read between the lines, why is this so?
Mundargi: So far as Petitioner no. 2 (#ArnabGoswami ) is concerned and looking a the background, the petition is maintainable in his individual behalf.
Mundargi: I am aware of the legal position that the company will not be sent to jail, but the fact that they have made Republic channel as an accused and everyone related as accused, and they are all “Or”.
Mundargi: The company is no. 1 but everyone else in the company is “wanted accused”. If they were to drop this stand, then everything changes, but they are not dropping it.
Mundargi: All the people from the company who are out on bail are all accused. And it would not be out of place to mention that Priya Mukharjee who had attended the investigation had gone to Bangalore for her father’s health.
Mundargi: Even Khanchandani filed for anticipatory bail, but since there was a holiday in between, Sunday I think, his application was kept on Monday and he was arrested in the meanwhile.
Mundargi: The charges alleged against them are Sections 406, 409 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) 465, 468 (forgery), 201, 204 (disappearance or destruction of evidence), 212 (harbouring offender) and 120B (conspiracy).
Mundargi begins reading the statement of the Deputy General Manager of Hansa Research Group.
During reading, the names Kazi and Waze come up.
Justice Shinde: We will go by the law, the facts, we will not go by names.
Mundargi: Right from generating the information that there is TRP Scam, 30000 barometers are installed throughout the country. Out of which 6% are in Maharashtra. Maybe maximum are in Mumbai.
Mundargi: Out of these maybe 8 statements are recorded that the channel has manipulated their TRPs. But they want the court to believe from these statements. And they are saying that the Advertisers are cheated.
Mundargi reads from the statement (in Marathi) which states that certain TV channels had tried to manipulate through Hansa Research employees.. They have named certain tv channel, which name I will not take.
Mundargi is reading out how they came across TV channels which tried to manipulate their TRP ratings and this helped the channels manipulate their advertisement revenue.
Mundargi reads statement (in Marathi): He was informed that one of their employees Vishal Ved Bhandari had pointed out that there were 5 people in whose houses the barometers were installed and which channel paid them what amount to manipulate.
Mundargi (from statement) Vishal had allegedly told the house members to watch particular TV channels for 2 hours every day and they were paid a specific amount.
Justice Shinde: To what extent can we look into? What are the limitations? What we understand is the material before us is sufficient for trial. So to what extent can we go into that material for quashing under Section 482.
Mundargi: unless specifically falling under specific section. Section 34 is prominent in that. Abetment, so on..
Endeavour is to answer this query of your lordship.
Mundargi: If I can point out how this particular statement came into existence at this stage. And let me point out that in every criminal matter there will be malice, but this malice is different.
Mundargi (reads statement of police officer Qazi from the vol 5 of the chargesheet) and points out that the company had information from secret informants that there was manipulation going on.
Justice Shinde: Since the pleadings are voluminous, it would be better if there are broad written submissions.
And how many volumes are there in the chargehseet?
Justice Pitale: So higher the TRP, higher the revenue.
Mundargi: You pay cable operators and they provide you channels and you can pay them to keep the channel at a particular number. But that is not an offence.
Mundargi: I have checked all law... say news comes at one number then sports from one number…. and I say place my channel at 25... then placing your channel at a certain channel is not an offence...
Mundargi (reading from the press conference transcript): There are some channels named but I will not take their name. Three channels names have come up and the biggest name is Republic TV, according to this.
Mundargi: because they had no basis or information against us. Bhandari was being investigated but he is of Hansa. The complainant says that there is a channel that is named but they are given clean chit.
Justice Shinde: If the statement of the police officer is being made for the trust of the public so that they are informed… maybe this angle can be though of.
Mundargi: The police officer was feeding the press that a particular scam took place. This interview points out that there was not sufficient material to say whatever was being said. I am not saying he should be dismissed.
Mundargi: Two fold submission - what the commissioner spoke and what material he had to support it.The officer of his position, probably can give details for gaining trust of public, yes. But not in this case, where there was no scam.
Mundargi (reading from the chargesheet): There are three letters. We (people from BARC) were asking the commissioner and police to disclose whatever they knew, but they did not.
Mundargi: I am reading this letter from Prasar Bharti to BARC. So the submission is, as on that particular date when the statement was made, this present applicant, there was no enquiry. There was no ongoing investigation.
Mundargi: He detected some malpractices. On October 6, one officer calls another officer and says that they had secret information. Hansa was aware. Hansa in FIR mentions some other channel.
Mundargi (referring to their reply): Their reply comes after two chargesheets. They say they do not have material against another TV channel and that is also being investigated.
Justice Shinde: We can continue tomorrow at 10 am. Incidentally tomorrow’s slot is open.
We appreciate the efforts and determination with which you began today. We want to continue with the hearing.
#SupremeCourt judge Justice NV Ramana will shortly inaugurate the #COVID19 vaccination program tomorrow at 9.45 am Delhi Govt Health Centre in Supreme Court premises. Vaccination will be for SC Bar Association members and their family above 60 years of age.
President of SCBA, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh and Honorary Secretary, Advocate Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad to welcome Justice Ramana.
5-judge Constitution bench of #SupremeCourt to hear challenge to Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act for providing educational and employment reservation to Marathas. Senior Adv Shyam Divan to continue arguments #MarathaReservation
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar had concluded his submissions yesterday.
- 6 commissions have found that Marathas are not backward
- Gaikwad commission report favouring Maratha quota is faulty
- Indra Sawhney case lays down the law (50% limit on reservations)
- No reason for reservations in PG medical admissions
Justice AM Khanwilkar led bench of #SupremeCourt to hear a plea filed by Zakia Jafri, the widow of deceased @INCIndia MP Ehsan Jafri, against the Special Investigation Team (SIT)’s clean chit to the then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in the 2002 #GodhraRiots@narendramodi
#ParliamentQuestion - Government has no plans, as on date, to introduce diaspora Bonds to create an avenue for the Indian diaspora to invest in India, says Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman to a question posed by Meenakshi @M_Lekhi
#ParliamentQuestion - Sahara Investor Scam
*MCA has received 17,000 investor complaints for non payment
*2.77 crore policies affected by the Sahara Q Shop scheme across 26 states
#BombayHighCourt is hearing the plea filed by activist Sharjeel Usmani challenging the FIR registered against him accusing him of making hateful speeches in the Elgar Parishad event of 2021. #elgarparishadcase
Sr Adv Mihir Desai appearing for Usmani submits that the issue pertains to the speech made by Usmani in the meeting in Pune according to first informant the speech in violation of 153-A.
Desai: There is no dispute that the speech was made. But the question is whether it comes under Section 153-A.