TRP SCAM CASE

Admin

4 months ago

Abstract:

The essence of democracy is that people should be able to freely choose their representatives and understand what that means. This clearly necessitates active participation, and the media plays a critical role in the development of a democratic nation by, among other things, increasing public awareness; promoting social harmony and peace, which strengthen the economy; keeping us informed about events occurring around the world; beginning to act as the framework for democracy; on the other hand, the media can also act as a catalyst for conflict, disseminate misinformation, and undermine democracy. Lastly, the media serves as a conduit between the people and their representatives or governors and as a platform for public discourse that leads to improved policy and decision-making.

Introduction:

Today’s media has a truly remarkable impact. Sometimes, communal uprisings have resulted from sensitive news receiving excessive publicity or sensationalism. The ignorant are typically more easily incited by this news than the educated. A democracy is a form of government in which every individual has the same freedom to voice and defend their beliefs. Every person’s development is greatly influenced by the media. The division this news causes in society breeds insensitivity, instability, and indifference. The current case concerns the appellant, who also serves as the chief editor of Republic TV, who was detained alongside other appellants following the filing of a formal complaint against them under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Facts of the case:

Akshyata Anvay Naik, the deceased’s widow and the case’s informant, filed a formal complaint on May 5, 2018, alleging her husband’s suicide. That day, when Akshyata and her daughter were staying in Mumbai, she heard that her mother-in-law Kumud Naik had passed away while laying in bed and that her husband had hanged himself in their Alibaug home, where the two had gone for a weekend getaway. “When she got to her residence in Alibaug, she discovered this. In a suicide note, the dead accused Nitesh Sarda, Feroz Shaikh, and Republic TV Editor in Chief Arnab Goswami of aiding and abetting him.

A contract was made in December 2016 between ARG Outlier Media Private Limited and Concorde Design Private Limited, both owned by Anvay Naik. This was the explanation given for the act. This was a civil contract that called for the deceased’s business to handle interior design. The ARG Outlier Media Private Limited neglected to pay the Bombay dyeing studio project a sum of Rs. 83 lacs after the said contract was completed.Additionally, there was an overdue sum of Rs. 55 lacs from Nitesh Sarda and Rs. 4 crores from Feroz Shaikh. Because of all the aforementioned appellants, the informant’s spouse was not paid for the work he completed, leaving him with no other option. Under emotional pressure, he committed himself on May 5, 2018. According to his suicide note, the aforementioned appellants should be held accountable. The FIR’s underlying allegation was that the appellants’ failure to pay legitimate debts contributed to the deceased’s and his mother’s deaths. Later, on November 4, 2020, the appellant was taken into custody in connection with the First Information Report (FIR) that had been filed at the Alibaug Police Station in compliance with Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Later, on April 16, 2020, host Arnab (referred to as known as the appellant) expressed his displeasure with the police’s inadequate investigation into the killing of three people and two sadhus in a mob in a Maharashtra village whereas police and forest guard personnel were present. This amounted to the appellant being the subject of several FIRs. As a result, the Anvay Naik suicide case was restarted.

REINVESTIGATION BY THE INVESTIGATION AGENCIES:

The state of Maharashtra’s Home Department began reopening the aforementioned First Information Report at the Alibaug Police Station on May 26, 2020, and directed that the matter be forwarded to the Crime Investigation Department. In compliance with Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, this investigation was started for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant filed a Writ Petition at the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution after being arrested on November 4, 2020, in response to the FIR lodged by the deceased’s spouse. Following the arrest, a remand request was made in this regard to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.Judicial custody was mandated. The appellant was granted bail by the Bombay High Court, which also directed him to file for regular bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He was instructed to have his bail petition considered within four days of the filing date. This led the appellant to petition for bail in the Raigad sessions court. The High Court denied the request for interim relief on December 10th and ruled to annul the comparable FIRs.

Error by the High court:

The High Court made an error, according to the Supreme Court, in denying the requests for interim relief. Still, this is a highly competitive section. The petitioner’s fundamental rights to equality and free speech are upheld by the Supreme Court under Article 32. The High Court failed to carry out its judicial duties. Similar to when a motion to quash the FIR was filed in the early stages of the case because it was a debatable matter. Furthermore, the FIR served as the basis for the initial denial of the interim release. Despite having the authority to use Article 226 in the petition to invoke an interim injunction under Section 439 to safeguard any individual, the High Court has failed to do so.

The justification on the validity of the inquiry:

Since the officials’ initial investigation proved illegitimate, it was argued that since obtaining fair justice is a fundamental right of every citizen, fair investigative methods must be used. Moreover, on May 26, 2020, a reinvestigation order was made following the filing of many FIRs against the appellant over his opinions. The essential idea of our Constitution, which grants every citizen the fundamental rights of equality under Article 14 and personal liberty under Article 21, is that the officials’ arbitrary actions are unacceptable. The appellants observe an obvious violation of their rights if the court decides not to uphold them. In a well-known ruling in the State of Rajasthan, Jaipur v. Balchand (1977) 4 SCC 308, Justice Krishna Iyer sardonically reminded us that “the basic Rule of our criminal justice system is ‘bail, not jail’.” This was held more than a few decades ago. Sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 306, 107, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Sections 482 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, shall apply in this instance.

Conclusion:

Following hearing arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court decided to grant bail to all three of the aforementioned appellants despite the case’s ongoing status and the High Court’s November 11, 2020 ruling regarding its resolution. Additionally, it was decided that the high court erred in denying the requests for temporary bail. As a result, it was decided and directed that the three appellants—Feroz Mohammad Shaikh, Arnab Manoranjan Goswami, and Nitesh Sarda—be released on temporary bail and required to execute a Rs 50,000 personal bond that must be posted with the jail superintendent.

FAQ

1.What is TRP?

a) Television Rating Point

b) Target Rating Point

c) Both a and b

2.The FIR was registered at the Alibaug Police station in accordance with which section?

a)Section 305 and section 43 of IPC

b)Section 306 and section 34 of IPC

c)Section 307 and section 32 of IPC

3.In which year the Mumbai police claimed to have busted a TRP scam

a) September 2021

b) October 2021