Imphal, Sept 11: The Editors Guild of India (EGI) has recently found itself embroiled in a legal dispute in connection with its activities in Manipur. This article delves into the details of the case, the role of EGI, and the larger implications for free speech and journalistic integrity.
In a surprising turn of events, the EGI informed the Supreme Court that it had visited Manipur at the invitation of the Army. The purpose of this visit was to conduct an “objective assessment” of what the Army termed “unethical and ex parte reporting” by vernacular media outlets. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing EGI, clarified that the Guild did not volunteer for this mission but was formally requested by the Army.
The Army’s Request and Its Implications
The invitation extended by the Army raises several questions. Firstly, why did the Army feel the need to involve a journalistic organization in assessing media reporting? Secondly, what precisely was the content of the report that led to subsequent legal action? To address these queries, it is essential to delve deeper into the circumstances surrounding EGI’s visit to Manipur.
EGI’s Report and Legal Consequences
The EGI’s visit to Manipur culminated in a report that was published on September 2. However, within just one day of the report’s release, on September 3, EGI found itself facing legal action. The Chief Minister of Manipur also publicly criticized the organization. The central issue that arises from these events is whether EGI can be held liable for legal consequences due to the publication of a report.
The Supreme Court’s Role
The case reached the Supreme Court, with Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud presiding. During the proceedings, Kapil Sibal argued that EGI should not face prosecution for publishing their report, emphasizing that they were merely fulfilling their journalistic duties by providing an objective assessment. This stance resonated with the Chief Justice, who pointed out that the FIR against EGI was solely based on the contents of the report and not on any on-ground criminal activities.
Protection from Arrest and the Jurisdiction Issue
The Supreme Court decided to extend its earlier order, issued on September 6, which protected the journalists associated with EGI from arrest. Additionally, the Court considered whether EGI could approach the Delhi High Court instead of the Manipur High Court to seek the quashing of FIRs against its members. The decision on this matter was scheduled for a hearing on September 15.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Manipur government, initially resisted transferring the case to Delhi. He argued that EGI was attempting to transform a regional issue into a national and political one. However, Chief Justice Chandrachud suggested that the Delhi High Court could examine the case and determine whether it had jurisdiction over it.
Also Read: Assam Aims to Break Guinness World Record with Massive Tree Planting Initiative
Kapil Sibal argued that it would be hazardous for EGI members to go to Manipur to face legal proceedings. He cited a recent incident in which the property of two lawyers associated with the case was vandalized in Manipur. Given these concerns, he requested that the matter be dealt with in Delhi.
The FIRs filed against EGI president Seema Mustafa, along with Sanjay Kapoor, Seema Guha, and Bharat Bhushan, have alleged various offenses under the Indian Penal Code, including defamation, defiling places of worship, and criminal conspiracy. The complaints leading to these FIRs claimed that the EGI report contained “incorrect and false statements.”
EGI has staunchly defended the accuracy and objectivity of its report. The Guild maintains that its report was meticulously prepared by a fact-finding team that conducted extensive research, including interviews with victims and eyewitnesses between August 7 and 10. The report highlighted concerns regarding freedom of speech and personal liberty in light of statements made by Manipur Chief Minister Biren Singh, who accused EGI of inciting passions and making provocative statements.
The case involving the Editors Guild of India in Manipur underscores the complex relationship between journalism, freedom of expression, and legal consequences. While the Supreme Court’s decision on jurisdiction and the subsequent legal proceedings will provide clarity, the incident raises critical questions about the role of media organizations in assessing and reporting on sensitive issues and the need for robust legal protections for journalists acting in their professional capacity.
