Justice SS Shinde led bench of #BombayHighCourt will continue hearing the plea filed by @republic TV challenging the proceedings initiated by the @MumbaiPolice in the #TRPScam case today.
In previous hearing the Court demanded why @republic and #ArnabGoswami were not named as accused in the matter. The State will respond to this today.
Mundargi points out to another statement which includes the statements of the cable operators and the people in whose homes the barometers were installed.
Justice Shinde: Mundargi, if you put it all at one place, then it will be convenient for the court.
Mundargi (reads in Marathi) which states that the cable operator was approached by Republic for placing the channel on a particular number. He was allegedly handed over a cheque for that.
Mundargi: NO that apart this is not an offence. These cable operators are bunching all these things together, so news in one bunch, movies in another bunch..
Mundargi: so in the bunch of news channels, I want my channel to the first and this is no offence under TRAI or IPC. And for that there are agreements. If at all this falls under the offence my learned friends may point out to the Court.
Mundargi: SO far as dual frequency is considered, this falls under the jurisdiction of TRAI and this is treated as an offence which is a private offence, where there is bar for taking cognizance.
Mundargi: This is violation of TRAI Act and Section 34 there is bar for taking cognizance unless an officer has made a compliant. This is not the subject matter of the police investigation. This offence.
Mundargi: They enthusiastically proceeded with the case, and invited ED’s attention.
The crux of my argument is on this case by the enthusiasm of the local police ED’s attention was invited, not because of us. As businessmen we do not want attention of any investigative agency.
Mundargi: That is all I want to say. Now I will stop on that.
Mundargi: This may be an unfair offence but not an offence.
How this operates is.. there are channels which you can choose from. There is free to air channels and there are paid channels. They are clubbed by genres.
Mundargi: Free to air channels are always available with the cable operators. How it works is, we pay a particular amount and our channel will be placed at a particular position. Such agreements are executed invariably in the industry.
Mundargi: and information was given that his secret informants have informed that channels are manipulating TRP and gave two names and then Hansa employee was registered.
Mundargi: Two letters are written, both by Waze to BARC. On the night of October 7, at 7.30 the report of BARC was submitted and that report does not mention the name of people from which they got information. On October 8, the interview took place.
Mundargi: This report on the accused Vishal Ved Bhandari’s statement to the Mumbai Police was given by BARC on October 24, 2020. So the two persons named in the FIR, the information comes in October 24.
Mundargi shows a letter from #SachinWaze sent to vigilance officer of BARC with a notice under section 91 asking them to comply with notice.
October 7 @ 8.41.
Mundargi (reads from the report): this is to inform you that as per Section 91 notice attached, we are attaching the statement of Vishal Ved Bhandari. The data disclosed will be shared with the IO. No emquiry.
Justice Shinde: We are only on the periphery. On the point of Malafides, you give us the notes. We would prefer you concentrate on merits rather than travelling in periphery.
Mundargi: I will go a step further,. So far the malafides are concerned. Malafides may be considered upto a particular level upto a particular stage. The shadow of the malafides have fallen on the merits of the case and on the statements of the witnesses.
Mundargi: Even without considering the malafides, I will show to the Court by referring to cases, that unless and until there is specific material against people, they cannot proceed to prosecute against them.
Justice Shinde: We are considering the Bhajan Lal case and the categories. We have to consider that the offences mentioned in the FIR and whether the offences are incriminating against the petitioners.
Justice Shinde: We are looking at it in this way, can we at this stage, while the prosecution is still collecting evidence intervene or should we wait for their investigation to conclude?
Mundargi: one step at the stage of the FIR, that stage hasn’t passed. Lordshps are rightly saying that the prosecution is at the start of the investigation not the end.
Justice Shinde: Look at the Bhajan Lal judgment. Because there is a Supreme Court judgment wherein the Court decided they would wait for the prosecution to complete the investigation.
Justice Pitale: If we ultimately exercise our powers and quash the FIR, qua whom are we quashing? Because you are not made an accused. At the most we can consider the “chaalak, maalak” statement
Mundargi: Hence one of the suggestion was that the petition may be admitted and then they can investigate and then show the incriminating material which we will challenge, why keep the sword hanging on us?
Mundargi: If that is the case, then today let them say, that they will not arrest us, they will investigate the case. Give us a one week notice before filing the chargesheet and then proceed with their steps. Their design is that they want to keep the investigation open ended.
Justice Shinde: So in this scenario, what reliefs can be granted in this petition? Yes, this chaalak, maalak was considered from the chargesheet, so except that, what is there? They are also not saying that you are accused.
Justice Shinde: It is their allegation that you are not even accused so you have no locus.
On the first day when the matter was heard, the same thing asked. What relief can be granted, because the area was grey, till the case is made out.
Justice Shinde: Earlier what interim relief can be granted? Hence we said IO will give notice and in due compliance, Goswami will appear and co-operate.
Therefore there was no question fo arrest as such.
Justice Shinde: We are not asking you this question as representative of your petitioner but as an officer of the Court.
Mundargi: Had the press not been here, I would have answered.
Justice Shinde: But there is space earmarked for them (press). Even in SC they have space.
Mundargi: The courts may modify the reliefs..
Justice Pitale: Let us look at the prayers.. Some prayers are too wide.. You are not an accused, can you ask for transfer of investigation? The complainant may say..
Mundargi: The contention was all throughout that it is two fold: That you cannot have this particular category and if you want to continue with this particular category then you should make me an accused in this case.
Justice Pitale: If they make a statement that you are not an accused then this plea does not lie. If they are keeping it open ended, then you are saying the plea can be admitted and interim be granted from arrest.
Justice Pitale: At which point will your officer say that there is reason to believe that there is reason to arrest.. ?
Justice Shinde: there is a concept of welfare state. The state and the investigating officer should stop at one stage. It cannot continue for years together.
Justice Shinde: these are offences pertaining to finances and not cases like Dabholkar murder cases.
There has to be objective assessment, reasonability…
Justice Pitale: They should not be considered as another form of trouble.
You can say that we will take 30 more days..
Justice Pitale: And you can say that within this time, if we do not get anything we will come to this court and make that statement. We expect that from you.
Justice Shinde: In another case where Mr Mundargi is the amicus curiae, we expressed our anguish.
Mundargi: If there is incriminating material against the man, he will be co-operate.
Justice Shinde: In a democratic set up, there has to be reasonability and objectiveness. Hence what my ld brother is asking is when will you complete the investigation.
Justice Pitale: You cannot have it both ways. You cannot make them an accused and then say you have evidence. If you have evidence make them an accused so that they know what kind of relief can be granted against them.
Justice Pitale: And you are representing a client who can afford to come to this court with this proceedings. Think of a person who cannot come to court and will be put behind bars.
Justice Shinde (To Thakare): This is not just for this investigation, but it was also for all investigations and for all agencies to which this would apply like the CBI, ED, etc..
Justice Pitale: There was a case before the Supreme Court CJI where the CBI was called caged parrot
Justice Shinde: In one of the statements, one MR Ghanshyam is named. What are your submissions on that?
Mundargi: I have clear submissions with the supporting case law.
Mundargi points out from the statements that they had considered only statements of 8-9 people which according to them affected the TRP ratings of the channel throughout the country which is not possible.
Supreme Court to hear a plea challenging the legislative competence of diverse State Assemblies in adopting 'Resolutions' against central statutes like CAA and farm laws which fall under the Union List of the Seventh Schedule #CAA #NRC #SupremeCourt
The plea states the Legislative actions of four different State Legislative Assemblies of Rajasthan, Kerala, Punjab and West Bengal have infringed Fundamental Rights of all Indian citizens #SupremeCourt
Senior Adv Soumya Chakroborty: I was asked to look at Arnab Goswami case and the Legislative competence bit. Article 194(2) provides the constitutional embargo.
CJI: We have nothing to do with liability of members
[Day 5] 5-judge Constitution bench of Supreme Court will continue hearing the challenge to Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act which provides educational and employment reservation to #Marathas.
BREAKING: Read the 7 guidelines issued by #SupremeCourt for lower courts to keep in mind while passing such bail orders and not trivialize sexual offence
The court also issued various additional directions. The order reads:
Courts should desist from expressing any stereotype opinion, in words spoken during proceedings, or in the course of a judicial order to the effect that:-
1. Women are physically weak and need protection.
2. Women are incapable of or cannot take decisions on their own.
3. Men are the “head” of the household and should take all the decisions relating to family.
4. Women should be submissive and obedient according to our culture.
The Karnataka HC begins hearing two petitions moved by Amazon and Flipkart, seeking to quash the probe ordered by the CCI for alleged violations of Competition law.
Divan informs the Court on all allegations against Amazon and Flipkart - Predatory pricing, deep discounts, preferred sellers, Amazon and Flipkart selling their own private labeled brands/inventory at discounts.