SC dismisses plea seeking protection for Republic TV staff
Hindustan Times, New Delhi | ByAbraham Thomas
Dec 08, 2020 06:58 AM IST
Senior advocate Milind Sathe, who appeared for the holding company of Republic TV – ARG Outlier Media Private Limited -- and Goswami informed the court that the petition was filed in anticipation of the arrest of several employees of the company.
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition filed by Republic TV and its editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami seeking blanket protection from arrest for all employees of the channel, quashing of all pending criminal cases and an omnibus direction to transfer all probes pending against the company to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
“This is a little ambitious,” remarked a bench of justices DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee, pointing to the general orders stated in the petition.
Senior advocate Milind Sathe, who appeared for the holding company of Republic TV – ARG Outlier Media Private Limited -- and Goswami informed the court that the petition was filed in anticipation of the arrest of several employees of the company.
The bench pointed out: “You are seeking a direction to the Union government to protect all employees of the news channel, restrain Maharashtra police from arresting any of your staff, quash all FIRs {first information reports} lodged against the company and transfer all cases to the CBI. It is better you withdraw this petition.” Sathe agreed to do so in order to pursue a remedy as and when an occasion arose in any matter. The court agreed to the request.
The same bench had granted Goswami interim bail on November 11 following his arrest in a two-year old abetment to suicide case of a businessman, Anvay Naik.
The current petition was not filed with regard to any specific case. The plea said: “The liberties of the employees of petitioner 1 ( ARG Outlier) and petitioner 2 (Goswami) are under attack by the political dispensation in the state of Maharashtra, Maharashtra Police by way of a series of targeted, malicious, wrongful, high handed and arbitrary acts of respondent 1 (Maharashtra government).”