1. Home
2. Legal News
3. TRP Scam: Republic TV v. Mumbai Police

TRP Scam: Republic TV v. Mumbai Police

Dated: October 20, 2020

                                                                                                                                      - By Megha Bhatia

Republic TV has filed a petition through its parent company ARG Outlier challenging the Mumbai Police’s FIR against it in connection with an alleged fake TV Rating Points (TRP) scam.

The Bombay High Court on October 19, 2020 recorded that if the Editor-in-Chief of Republic TV, Arnab Goswami, is identified as an accused in the case filed for alleged manipulation of television rating points (TRPs), the Mumbai Police must first issue a summons.

In such a case , the Court pointed out, it is unlikely that Goswami will be arrested prior to the next hearing, scheduled for 5 November. The Court also noted that in the event of any urgency, Republic TV will be able to make a reference to the Bombay High Court.

Court debate between Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal and Harish Salve

Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal and Harish Salve locked horns on whether the Republic and its Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami are being handled unfairly by the Mumbai Police at the preliminary hearing today before the Bombay High Court in the plea filed by Republic TV against the pending inquiry into the TRP scandal.

While Salve argued that as the Mumbai Police is biased against Republic TV, the High Court should interfere, Sibal countered that there is no question of mala fide or the need for temporary relief, provided that the investigation is still at a nascent level.

Salve argued, “The FIR is reeking of malafides. It is an attempt to suppress the voice of the petitioners, prima facie...The FIR says 420 (Section 420, IPC which deals with “cheating”). God knows how it is 420. Who has been cheated?”

Noting that Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with the criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent, was also referred to in the FIR, Salve continued, “When can this come in for 409? Everybody is a private organisation.”

He went on to include a record of events to say that the Republic was being attacked. The following submissions were made in this respect:

(a)The genesis of the matter lay in the presentation of the Palghar lynching case by Republic TV, where the Maharashtra government’s actions were criticized.

(b) For publications denouncing the Congress Party Chief, some FIRs were previously reported at the request of the Congress Party. The Supreme Court later quashed several FIRs filed on this subject, by those with allegiance to the Congress party, for being reproductive.

(c) The Shiv Sena wrote to cable operators on September 10 telling them to stop broadcasting Republic TV channels alleging that the media outlet had threatened and made insulting remarks to the Maharashtra Chief Minister. The Bombay High Court refused to offer Republic relief, noting that other relevant bodies should be addressed. The letter to the cable providers, in any event, did not work.

(d) On September 16, proceedings were launched against Goswami by the Privilege Committee. In an appeal brought against it, the Supreme Court issued a notice on 30 September.

“The whole thing is a thinly disguised excuse...” Salve argued, while alleging that the Mumbai Police have serious suspicions of mala fides. As such, Salve further argued that the Court should act and noted that there are already case laws asking for the same. Salve concluded that if an investigation is needed in the case at all, it should not be done by the Mumbai Police as it is biased towards the Republic.

In this respect, Salve also stressed that while the Republic was not identified in the FIR, in a press interview, the Mumbai Police Commissioner clearly levelled allegations against Republic TV.

“The interview by Mumbai Police commissioner shows malice in fact...I have genuine apprehensions about how they are going to treat the petitioner, my Lord. Tomorrow they may call him (Goswami), arrest him... There was no need for calling a press conference and making these statements - it gives apprehension that the Police is not acting out of duty”, Salve argued.

Sibal interjected to point out that the commissioner never stated the name of Goswami, and that only Republic TV was alluded to in the press interview statements. Salve, however, countered, “Arnab Goswami is Republic TV! When Republic TV runs a ‘bad show’, Arnab Goswami is to blame. But if Republic TV is accused, then (it is) ‘who is Arnab Goswami?’ Very nice!”

“There is no mention of Republic in the FIR, so how can it be quashed (through Republic’s petition)?”, Sibal contended. 

He asserted that the motion was completely premature in any event, provided that the investigation had just started in the TRP scam case. “It relates to an FIR which involves allegations of paying cash for getting TRPs to make commercial profits. Three channels are prima facie involved. The investigation is still going on... That investigation is still in the nascent stage.”

Sibal added that the incident in Palghar, the trials of the Privilege Committee and the earlier FIRs brought against the Republic (in which the Supreme Court intervened) had nothing to do with the TRP scam case.

Moreover, Sibal told the Court that the caselaw relied on by Salve to state that the Court should intervene when allegations of mala fides are made is a civil case. The immediate matter, on the other hand, concerns a criminal prosecution.

“The concept of malafide is entirely different in criminal proceedings”, Sibal argued, adding, “In a criminal case, what is relevant is materials produced consequent to an investigation. That material is not yet unearthed, it is not before the court. So how does malafide come at this stage?”

Sibal went on to assert, “At this point in time, I don’t think this court should interfere to give any interim relief. Investigation is going on. There may be many more media channels involved. This may be happening at various levels. This is something to be investigated.”

Responding to a request made by Salve for interim orders to protect Goswami from arrest, Sibal also remarked, “He is like any other citizen. He does not have special privileges just because he is a member of the press. If there is evidence against him, what is the malafide?”

Republic TV’s Plea

Arnab Goswami, directed his legal staff, Phoenix Legal, to launch defamation proceedings against Param Bir Singh, Mumbai Police Commissioner, demanding damages to the tune of Rs. 200 crores, alleging harm to their image for relating the TRP scam case to Republic TV.

Republic TV will also launch dismissal proceedings against Special Executive Magistrate and Assistance Police Commissioner Sudhir Jambwadekar for the commencement of FIR proceedings previously suspended by the Bombay High Court, the press release states.

This move by the Republic comes in the light of court’s hearing before the Bombay High Court, wherein the Court was told that Republic TV has not yet been charged in the Mumbai Police FIR as a complainant.

“The Maharashtra Government’s admission in Bombay High Court today comes as a huge victory to Republic TV that has consistently maintained there was no malpractice by the Network.”

The Bench of Justices SS Shinde and MS Karnik observed at the hearing that Republic TV has not yet been arrayed as a complainant in the Mumbai Police FIR.

The SS Shinde and MS Karnik Bench of Justice have observed that there is a reluctance on the part of investigative officers to report to the media specifics of pending inquiries in sensitive cases. 

The Court reported orally, taking critical care of the same matter, “Something will have to be done. Not only in the present case this is happening, but it has been happening in other matters where the investigation is in progress. Officers are not supposed to give incriminating material to the media.”

The Bench noted that as of now there is no question of detention. In view of the same, the Court has not given any clear order prohibiting the arrest of Goswami or anyone serving the channel from any jurisdiction.

The Bench also ordered the authorities to send, by November 4, 2020 the inquiry documents for the Court’s scrutiny. The argument is expected to be heard next on November 5 at 3 pm.