The Supreme Court Monday questioned if a fact-finding report on Manipur violence prepared by the Editors Guild of India (EGI) could lead to a criminal case. The SC also observed that the fact-finding report was at best their subjective opinion.
A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra extended its order restraining Manipur police from arresting the EGI president Seema Mustafa and the other three members of the fact-finding team till Friday – the next date of hearing and sought the state’s response to permit the body to approach the Delhi high court to quash the two criminal cases registered against them in Manipur.
“It is a report after all. Can that be subject matter of a criminal case? It is at best their subjective opinion. This is not a case where a person was accused of doing anything on the ground," said the bench, also comprising justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra, reported Hindustan Times.
Manipur has filed an affidavit that the petition against the first FIRs should be filed with the high court in the state, which it said, was fully functional and where there is provision to appear virtually.
The bench said: “We are not going to quash the FIRs, but are considering whether we should ask them to go to Manipur high court or to approach the Delhi high court."
The FIRs were registered at Imphal and Porompat police stations on September 3, a day after the EGI published its fact-finding report, accusing the EGI and its team of promoting enmity, stoking communal tensions in the state, besides insulting the Meitei community.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Manipur government, said, “As it has come from the court, we shall take instructions about the Delhi high court hearing the matter. We do not want them to make it a political issue. Our worry is this may become a precedent. This matter can go to a high court near to Manipur," the HT reported.
The bench extended the protection against arrest, first granted to the journalists on September 6, till Friday, and told the Solicitor general: “You may make a guarded statement that it shall not be treated as a precedent. The subject matter of the FIRs is only the report."
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for EGI, said it was “hazardous" for the team of journalists to go to Manipur. He referred to a recent instance where the house of a lawyer was vandalized for appearing in a case against the government.
“I am not playing politics, but we do not want a situation where we pursue the matter before the high court and our lawyer’s house gets vandalized," HT reported him as saying.
He informed the court that the team of journalists comprising Seema Guha, Sanjay Kapur and Bharat Bhushan visited the state from August 7 to 10 on an invitation from the Indian Army. He showed a copy of the invitation letter dated July 12 from the Indian Army about unethical reporting of incidents of Manipur violence by the vernacular media.
“It is on an invitation by the Army seeking an objective examination that I go to the state and once we submit a report, how can these offences stand? Why should we be prosecuted on this basis? Allow us to challenge these offences in the high court here (in Delhi)," Sibal said.
He also referred to a statement by Manipur chief minister N Biren Singh at a press conference on September 4 justifying the offences detailed in the FIR.
In its affidavit responding to the petition, the Manipur government said as per a prime facie probe by the state, portions of the report were false, published without verification, and “highly controversial".
It added: “Prima facie, many facts in the report were misrepresented, some of them were plainly incorrect, some of them apart from being false are also highly controversial...The intent behind the same requires to be investigated as the same holds a high propensity of creating a public order issue in a sensitive area."
The state disputed several claims made in the report regarding “sensitive" issues from the standpoint of law and order, such as the crackdown on drug cartels, eviction of only certain communities from forest land, partisan conduct of state authorities during the violence and distribution of developmental funds.
The state said these were “potentially dangerous" claims.
The state said, “It is a sensitive time for the state and any kind of false and misleading reportage can have a direct bearing on the law and order situation in the state."
The FIRs were filed under Sections 153-A (promoting enmity), 298 (uttering any word with a deliberate intention of wounding religious feelings), 505 (statement to incite violence against any class or community of persons), 499 (criminal defamation). 120-B (criminal conspiracy) among other provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
EGI said its report was meant to alert the authorities and to develop appropriate responses and solutions to assist them in decision-making to uphold the rule of law.
Titled “Report of the Fact-Finding Mission on Media’s Reportage of the Ethnic Violence in Manipur", the EGI team found “clear indications" to show how the leadership of the state became “partisan" during the conflict which witnessed the executive, bureaucracy, police and other security forces divided along ethnic lines.
Instant Approval