After the Supreme Court in a massive judgement granted interim bail to Republic Media Network's Editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami, BJP national vice president Baijayant Jay Panda lauded the top court for 'upholding the fundamental principles of law', calling it a warning to 'wannabe dictators' in Odisha, West Bengal and Kerala.
The Supreme Court order today granting bail to Arnab Goswami upholds fundamental principles of law that were being blatantly flouted by the Maharashtra police. It is a warning to wannabe tinpot dictators there & in Odisha, West Bengal & Kerala that they will be put in their place— Baijayant Jay Panda (@PandaJay) November 11, 2020
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the release of Republic Media Network's Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami and other co-accused in a 2018 abetment to suicide case on interim bail. The court said that the Raigad police should ensure the compliance of the order of release of Arnab Goswami forthwith.
The top court said that the detailed judgment recording the reasons for the order will be released later. The bench was hearing Arnab's plea challenging the Bombay High Court order rejecting his interim bail plea and demanding quashing of FIR against him by the Mumbai Police.
A two-judge bench comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Indira Banerjee highlighted the importance of personal liberty and also sent out a message to the High Courts across the country.
During the hearing, Justice Chandrachud pointed out that a case of abetment cannot be made if active incitement and encouragement are not involved.
The SC asked, "If money is owed to a person, is that a case of Abetment to suicide?" Highlighting personal liberty, the top Court further asked, "Assuming the FIR is the gospel truth and that's a matter of investigation but is not paying up money Abetment to suicide? It will be a Travesty of justice if bail is not granted while FIR is pending?"
When the lawyers at the opposite side argued, that the top court shouldn't interfere as the matter is pending in the sessions court, the SC bench said, "Technicality cannot be a ground to deny someone personal liberty. This is not a case of terrorism."
Terming that if Courts do not interfere in the case, it will be injustice, the Supreme Court bench noted, "Travelling to the path of destruction if the court does not interfere today. Whatever be his ideology, lest I don't even watch his channel but if in this case, constitutional courts do not interfere today - we are travelling the path of destruction undeniably."