The case was heard by a bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.
New Delhi:
Making some striking observations in the Editors Guild of India case, the Supreme Court has said that the crime of promoting enmity between groups, mentioned in the Manipur Police FIR, does not appear to be made out. The court also wondered how merely giving a report could constitute a crime.
A case had been filed against three members of the Editors Guild’s fact-finding team, who had gone to Manipur to assess the media’s reportage of the ethnic conflict in the state, and the Guild’s president. The complainant had alleged that the report submitted by the team was “false, fabricated and sponsored”, and the charges in the first information report included promoting enmity between different groups.
During the hearing on Friday, a bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said, “Prima facie, the crime mentioned in the FIR does not appear to be made out. There is no whisper of crime in the complaint based on which the FIR has been registered.”
Noting that the Editors Guild team had been invited to Manipur by the Army, CJI Chandrachud said, “Mr Solicitor General, the Army writes to the EGI. Army says that there was partisan reporting. They go on the ground and submit a report. They may be right or wrong. This is what free speech is all about.”
The bench asked the complainant why the FIR should not be quashed and gave two weeks for a reply. Extending the interim relief given to the journalists, the court said no action can be taken against them until then.
In its report, published on September 2, the Guild had said there were clear indications that the Manipur leadership had become partisan during the conflict. It was also critical of the internet ban in the state, which it said was detrimental to reportage, and the “one-sided reporting” by some media outlets.
Representing the complainant, senior advocate S Guru Krishnakumar said, “This a report which ferments further animosity between groups. If this is a fact-finding report, as they claim, then it should have 100-200 photos of people from other communities who have suffered damage. The reason I’m referring to all this is that the petitioner is trying to project a picture that a completely unbiased report has been submitted, but it is far from that.”
Appearing for the Manipur government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the court may extend the interim protection to the journalists and transfer the plea to the Delhi High Court if the bench wanted to do so.
On September 4, Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh had said that a case had been registered against Editors Guild president Seema Mustafa and senior journalists Seema Guha, Bharat Bhushan and Sanjay Kapoor. The section pertaining to defamation had been added after another FIR had been filed a few days later.
The first FIR had been filed by social worker N Sarat Singh and the second by Sorokhaibam Thoudam Sangita, a resident of Imphal.
The Supreme Court was hearing a petition by the journalists seeking the quashing of the FIRs.
# Supreme Court Questions Crime of Giving a Report in Editors Guild Case
**New Delhi:** The Supreme Court has made some striking observations in the Editors Guild of India case, stating that the crime of promoting enmity between groups, mentioned in the Manipur Police FIR, does not appear to be made out. The court has also questioned how merely giving a report could be considered a crime.
★Complaint filed against three members of Editors Guild’s fact-finding team and Guild’s president over allegedly false report on ethnic conflict in Manipur.
★Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra finds no basis for the crime mentioned in the FIR.
★Editors Guild team was invited to Manipur by the Army to assess media’s reportage of the conflict.
★Court extends interim relief to journalists and asks complainant to justify why the FIR should not be quashed.
★Guild’s report criticized Manipur leadership for partisan behavior and internet ban’s impact on reportage.
The case revolves around a complaint filed against three members of the Editors Guild’s fact-finding team and the Guild’s president. The complainant alleged that the report submitted by the team was false and promoted enmity between groups. However, the Supreme Court, during the hearing, found no basis for the crime mentioned in the FIR, stating that there was no indication of any crime in the complaint.
The court noted that the Editors Guild team had been invited to Manipur by the Army to investigate the media’s reportage of the ethnic conflict. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud emphasized the importance of free speech and the role of fact-finding reports in promoting unbiased reporting.
The bench has given the complainant two weeks to justify why the FIR should not be quashed. In the meantime, the court has extended interim relief to the journalists, ensuring that no action can be taken against them.
The Editors Guild’s report, published on September 2, criticized the Manipur leadership for partisan behavior during the conflict. It also highlighted the detrimental impact of the internet ban on reportage and raised concerns about one-sided reporting by certain media outlets.
Representing the complainant, senior advocate S Guru Krishnakumar argued that the report further fueled animosity between groups and questioned its unbiased nature. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Manipur government, suggested that the interim protection be extended and the plea be transferred to the Delhi High Court if deemed necessary by the bench.
On September 4, Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh announced that a case had been registered against the Editors Guild president and senior journalists. The section pertaining to defamation was added to the FIR later on.
The Supreme Court was hearing a petition by the journalists seeking the quashing of the FIRs.
Overall, the Supreme Court’s observations in the Editors Guild case raise important questions about the criminalization of reporting and the need to protect free speech and unbiased journalism. The court’s decision on the FIRs will have significant implications for press freedom in India.
Follow DelhiBreakings on Google News
Superfast News Coverage by DelhiBreakings.com team.
For Superfast national news and Delhi Breaking Stories visit us daily at https://delhibreakings.com
