Important Details of the court proceedings at the Bombay High Court in the Habeas Corpus case filed by Arnab Goswami, challenging his arrest by the Maharashtra Police in the abetment to suicide case are discussed below.
(The suicide case had been closed by the Mumbai Police earlier, citing lack of evidence.)
3:30 pm, 05 Nov 2020
Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda begins his submissions on the habeas corpus plea. He submits to the court that he wants to press only for interim reliefs, that is, the stay of investigation in the FIR of 2018.
3:30 pm, 05 Nov 2020
Court: We are not inclined to grant reliefs unless notice is issued to the respondents to respond.
Court: There is a petition of original complainant - Naik.
Ponda: My client is behind in an illegal manner.
3:30 pm, 05 Nov 2020
Court: For those proceedings you have a remedy.
Ponda: No milords, I will point out how.
Court: We will issue notice to all respondents.
3:31 pm, 05 Nov 2020
Ponda: Kindly give me 7 minutes I will show I should be given reliefs.
Court: We will give you 10 minutes.
Ponda begins by stating that without judicial order, the police suo motu began this illegal investigation. Court asks if the petition has been served, Ponda says yes.
3:32 pm, 05 Nov 2020 Ponda: The investigation which began from the 15th October 2020 is illegal. The manner in which the arrest was done to the ‘bad-boy’ of TV journalism was arrested by 40 people with Sten-guns. Court asks him not to argue in a pending proceeding.
4:02 pm, 05 Nov 2020 Senior Advocate Harish Salve seeks leave to add to the submissions of Ponda.
4:03 pm, 05 Nov 2020
Salve submits that there are several cases filed against Goswami as he is a journalist and he should be released.
Salve: Will heavens fall on Maharashtra if he is released on interim?
4:04 pm, 05 Nov 2020
Ponda continues his submissions.
Ponda: the “A” summary is like a nail in the coffin. Police investigation shows there no scant respect for the Magistrate. Can the police review an order under S. 253 CrPC - which the magistrate had “seen and filed”?
4:05 pm, 05 Nov 2020 Ponda: There was only an intimation to the judicial magistrate on October 15 that they are re-opening investigation.
4:05 pm, 05 Nov 2020 Ponda: Let us assume it is a void order, and you need to approach a superior court of law. If an order is void then the party can go back and say I was not heard. Nothing of that sort happened here. There was only a plea that the investigation was closed wrongly, so re-open.
4:06 pm, 05 Nov 2020
Ponda: A strategic “A” summary was submitted wrongly and continues to exist.
Court: what we are proposing is, the other petitioner is also listed, we will have to hear them.
Ponda: Yes, but they could have gone back to the Magistrate.
4:07 pm, 05 Nov 2020
Ponda: I am saying that they can go back to a court of law, and get orders under S. 362 and gotten orders. They cannot ask for further investigation here, they must go there.
4:08 pm, 05 Nov 2020
Ponda: The complainants have asked for a re-investigation, but they have admitted that the closure needs to be set aside.
Court: Initially you mentioned 7 minutes, we could not hear if it was 7 or 70 minutes..
Ponda: I will try to be as brief milords.
4:09 pm, 05 Nov 2020
Ponda: What I am saying is the police tried to revise an order of the magistrate on their own thus acting under S.362, CrPC which they should not have done. Bhagwant Singh is the authority in this.
Court: Mr. Ponda, Senior Advocate Amit Desai says that he has not received the compilation of judgments.
Ponda: We have submitted milord.
Court: When a sr adv. is saying he does not have, we should ensure.
Desai: What should I do Milord?
Court: you decide.
The compilations are re-sent to all advocates on email.
Ponda: May I proceed now?
Desai: Yes, if there is any problem, I will let you know.
Salve: I will WhatsApp him!
Ponda proceeds with the judgment.
4:14 pm, 05 Nov 2020
Ponda: Police have invoked section 173(8) - report of investigation. They should have invoked 156(3). The police should have gone back to the pre-cognisance stage. Ponda: In a closed matter either go to court under 156(3) or 173(8) for orders.
4:14 pm, 05 Nov 2020
Ponda: They could go to the magistrate under S.173(8) for order, or go in appeal to set aside the order, I was not heard. Both was not done.
4:14 pm, 05 Nov 2020
Ponda: They could have filed a private complaint for starting fresh proceedings. So my basic proposition is this: without judicial intervention, they could not have started investigation, the arrest was illegal.
4:16 pm, 05 Nov 2020
Ponda: In a matter like this, in a completely dead case, can milords not invite their attention for a citizen.
Court: Is the informant a necessary party in this?
Ponda: He is before this court milord. Milords can hear him. Court: But he is not party in the petition
4:16 pm, 05 Nov 2020
Ponda: The reliefs are not against him. But Milords can hear him. My release and stay of investigation prayers are not against him. The informant (Akshata Naik) did not go to court for the re-starting investigation.
4:17 pm, 05 Nov 2020
Court: But we have to hear the victim.
Ponda: But he is here. Salve: We will do this right away. Grant us leave to amend, we will do it now. Citizens liberty’s are involved, surely that surpasses the procedural aspects.
4:19 pm, 05 Nov 2020
Salve: Give us oral leave to implead the parties today, we will submit the formal amendment tomorrow.
4:19 pm, 05 Nov 2020
Court grants leave to Ponda to amend the petition and implead the informant in his plea forthwith.
4:19 pm, 05 Nov 2020
Ponda: Mr. Gupte for the informant is here, he has been added.
4:22 pm, 05 Nov 2020
Ponda: Milords we have argued matters before Division Benches for ad-interim reliefs and then the court has issued notice.
Court: Mr. Ponda we have to hear the respondents, procedure has to be followed.
Court asks Advocate Vaibhav Karnik for Akshata Naik if he has instructions to go on.
Kulkarni accepts notice. State and Union accepts notice.
Ponda: The parties must not ask for time tomorrow saying they have not had time to go through petition.
Senior Advocate Shirish Gupte appearing for Akshata intervenes: You cannot stop us from asking time. You cannot say that . You should have served us before hand.
Salve: Yes Milord, after the TRP hearing, we should have known and served him sooner.
4:24 pm, 05 Nov 2020
Salve: Please tell us if there is any other person against whom we have written, we will serve them too.
4:24 pm, 05 Nov 2020
Court asks all parties to exchange their pleadings. Matter will be heard tomorrow at 3 pm.
Advocate Vaibhav Karnik for Adnya Naik requests that her petition can also be placed for hearing tomorrow.
The Court declares that this petition will be heard along with Goswami’s plea tomorrow.
Court begins hearing the TRP scam matter.
Salve mentions that this matter can also be heard tomorrow.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for the State submits that he is not available tomorrow.
Salve: Then this can be heard after vacation, it is not urgent.
Court asks all counsels to decide amongst themselves on one date.
Court: We are here everyday, but then counsels are busy so we ask.
Court issues notice in both interim applications. Court records that on joint request, the matter is posted to November 25.
Court: As per the convenience of Mr. Salve.
Sibal: His level of inconvenience is different milords, he is really busy in the morning with other matters (referring to his matters in London)
Court records that a report of the investigation has been given as per the last hearing.
Advocate Malvika Trivedi from Phoenix Legal requested the Court to grant him protection from coercive steps.
Trivedi: The employees are suffering, they are being harassed on a daily basis.
Court: Who are you appearing for? There are three senior advocates for the Petitioners, and Advocate on Record is speaking.
Trivedi apologises.
Senior Advocate Milind Sathe appearing for ARG Outlier in the TRP Scam submits that they will argue for the reliefs in the next hearing.
Hearing has concluded for the day.
Court will hear Goswami’s plea challenging his illegal arrest along with Adnya Naik’s plea seeking re-investigation tomorrow at 3 pm for hearing on ad-interim reliefs.
(courtesy Bar & Bench)
The Court refused to grant Goswami interim relief without hearing the parties in the matter and issued notice in the case. Further, a complaint was filed before NHRC which has ordered the Mumbai and Raiga police to submit a report within four weeks, with details of Goswami's arrest and treatment while in custody.