‘No need for embellishment’: HC to Arnab Goswami, Republic TV on Anil Ambani coverage

Speaking about the manner in which court proceedings should be reported, a single-judge bench of justice Arif Doctor said that the “way things are conveyed is crucial” and that there is a “fine line” between reporting and adding embellishments

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Thursday again cautioned Republic TV and its editor-in-chief, Arnab Goswami, over the news channel’s coverage of the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) investigations into companies linked to industrialist Anil Ambani, stating that while court proceedings can be reported freely, defamatory “embellishments” should be avoided.

Mumbai, India - December 26, 2016: Arnab Goswami with director and Dean of IIT bombay at Mood Indigo of IIT-Bombay At IIT Powai in Mumbai, India, on Monday, December 26, 2016. (Photo by Prashant Waydande / Hindustan Times)

Speaking about the manner in which court proceedings should be reported, a single-judge bench of justice Arif Doctor said that the “way things are conveyed is crucial” and that there is a “fine line” between reporting and adding embellishments.

The court was hearing a defamation suit filed by Ambani against Republic TV and Goswami for linking him to the ED’s ongoing investigations into alleged loan fraud involving three companies he founded but no longer controls—Reliance Communications (RCom), Reliance Home Finance Ltd, and Reliance Commercial Finance Ltd.

In his petition, Ambani stated that the continuous coverage on Republic TV regarding the ED’s proceedings involving the three companies, and the continuous use of words such as “financial scam mastermind, cheat, money launderer, and a fraud,” have caused “irreparable damage” to his reputation.

During the hearing, advocates Mayur Khandeparkar, Ameet Naik and Madhu Gadodia, appearing for Ambani, submitted that usage of such words can’t be allowed under journalistic freedom and that any kind of fair reporting cannot be justified by assassinating one’s character. “I’m not being touchy about what’s been spoken about me, but this is building a public perception against me and trying to colour everybody’s mind, which is affecting my image,” Ambani argued.

On the other hand, senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for Republic TV, contended that nothing “disparaging” was said on the news channel. “Reporting facts is not the commission of an offence,” he said, before clarifying that if anything is truly found to be offensive, they “will make sure it’s amended”.

Arnab Goswami’s stance

In an affidavit filed on April 14, Goswami said that this was a classic case of “a Slapp (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) suit, a tool often used against media organisations to silence legitimate journalistic reporting on matters of grave public interest involving fraud and misappropriation of public money”. He added that the suit was a coercive means to threaten and silence the media by misusing provisions of law.

“When the issue of fraud affects 11 major banks, and over ₹40,000 crore of public funds are under scrutiny, the public has a legitimate right to understand the magnitude,” the affidavit said. “The systemic risk to the banking system is a matter of national importance. When seven independent public sector banks have officially classified him as ‘fraud’, characterising him and using adjectives such as “scamster” is legitimate and linguistically synonymous with such official determinations,” it added.

What the court said

However, the bench expressed its dissatisfaction over the comments made against Ambani on the news channel, saying, “No one stops you from reporting and no one can, but application of mind has to be there.”

During the previous hearing on April 1, the court had orally told Goswami and Republic TV to avoid “hitting below the belt”, “bring down the rhetoric”, and refrain from “giving superlative taglines to news” that could be seen as attacking an individual.

Stating that the issue can be “worked out” between the parties, the court said on Thursday, “The moment things heat up, parties can spiral there. There is no need for embellishment. Tempers need to be a little down. However, I think the matter is resolvable.”

The next hearing in the case will be held on April 29.