Andhrabased TV5 And ABN News Channels Charged With Sedition, Move SC Against FIR; Claim Chilling Effect On Media

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• ABN News and TV5 of Andhra Pradesh have filed a petition with the Supreme Court challenging an Andhra Pradesh police FIR charging them with sedition and other offences for airing offending speeches by YSR Congress chief Kanumari Raghurama Krishnam Raju.
• Raju's speech was termed as "offensive speech" was broadcast on many networks, including the petitioners', according to the FIR.
• The petitioners have tried to have the Enquiry Report dated 14.05.2021, on which the FIR was based, quashed. They also wanted to remain on the investigation and be protected from coercion.
• Raju claimed in front of the Supreme Court that the AP Chief Minister was abusing the police to imprison his political rivals.
• Article 19 of the Indian constitution is thought to include freedom of speech and expression, which includes freedom of the press.

INTRODUCTION

TV5 and ABN Andhrajyothi, both based in Andhra Pradesh, have filed a petition in the Supreme Court for quashing of the FIR filed against them by the Andhra Pradesh Police on sedition charges, as well as an order prohibiting the respondents from taking any coercive action against them.

The petitioners were charged after YSR MP K. Raghu Rama Krishna Raju made allegedly derogatory speeches on a segment hosted by the petitioner's channel, in which he attacked the ruling party.With his speeches, the MP is accused of inciting hate among certain groups and of repeatedly criticising the state government, Chief Minister Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, and other leaders.His criticism of the CM became personal, and he began making derogatory remarks about any operation, whether it was the introduction of several welfare schemes or the management and vaccination of Covid-19.

P.V. Sunil Kumar, Additional DG-CID, ordered a preliminary investigation into the MP and discovered that he was giving speeches on a regular basis to incite tensions among different groups and was also targeting government dignitaries, resulting in a lack of public trust in them. His anti-community and anti-state government dignitaries hate speeches are being shared in social media forums, and he is accused of conspiring with a part of the media to spread his speeches, creating public disorder.A case was filed under sections 124 A, 153 A, 505 read with 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, and the suspect was apprehended.

Petitioner Contended

• According to the ABN Andhra Jyothi, the news channel has been a target of the state government since the Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy-led government took control, resulting in restricted broadcasting of the channel in Andhra Pradesh. It went on to say that after receiving an order from the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), the channel continues to be broadcast in the state in a limited capacity.
• According to TV5, Raju's "offending" speeches were broadcast by other media outlets as well.
• The news channel further said, “The FIR against TV5 is based on the fact that Mr. Raju was given prearranged and organised slots, which is not substantiated in the FIR and even if it were, it would not be considered a criminal act since public figures are often hosted at allocated time slots in news channels,” According to the paper, the channel requested a stay on the investigation and an order prohibiting the police from taking any punitive action against the petitioner firm, its news channels, or their employees in its petition.
• The petition goes on to say that the FIR not only violates freedom of speech and expression by "seeking to criminalise the act of airing the opinions of a sitting member of parliament who is a public figure on a news channel, but also creates a chilling impact for media houses in the state."
• ABN asserted before the Court that the registered FIR against it, especially for sedition, violates its fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and (g) of the Indian Constitution. It went on to say that it was nothing more than an effort to browbeat the media and prevent it from covering important issues. It was also said that ABN's management and workers face a threat to their liberty and lives.

What is meant by Freedom of speech of press

Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution does not expressly address freedom of speech of the press; instead, it only mentions freedom of speech and expression. Dr. Ambedkar, Chairman of the Drafting Committee, made it clear during the Constituent Assembly debates that no special mention of press freedom was needed because the press and an individual or a person were the same in terms of their right to express themselves.
Article 19(1)(a)

To maintain the democratic way of life, citizens must have the right to express their feelings and make their opinions known to the general public. The press, as a powerful medium of mass communication, should be allowed to play its role in the development of a strong and viable society. Citizens' press freedom would be undermined if they are denied their ability to criticise, which would be anti-democratic.

The freedom of speech of the press is not expressly listed in article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It only mentions freedom of speech and expression. Dr. Ambedkar, Chairman of the Drafting Committee, made it clear during the Constituent Assembly debates that no special mention of press freedom was needed because the press and an individual or person were the same in terms of their right to express themselves.

The framers of the Indian constitution saw press freedom as an integral component of the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution.

In Romesh Thappar vs. State of Madras and Brij Bhushan vs. State of Delhi , the Supreme Court assumed that press freedom was an integral component of the right to free speech and expression. PatanjaliSastri J. observed in Romesh Thaper that freedom of speech and expression involved the dissemination of ideas, and that freedom was guaranteed by freedom of circulation. It is obvious that the right to free speech and expression includes the right to publish and circulate one's thoughts, opinions, and other points of view with total independence and by any and all available means of dissemination.

However, freedom of the press, including freedom of speech, is not absolute. Article 19(1)(2) must protect the public interest by imposing fair restrictions on freedom of speech in matters affecting:

a. State sovereignty and dignity
b. State protection
c. Friendly ties with foreign countries
d. Law and order
e. Dignity and ethics
f. Contempt of court
g. Defamation
h. Incitement to commit an offence

Conclusion

The Andhra Pradesh-based news channels TV5 and ABN Andhrajyothi have petitioned the Supreme Court for the quashing of the FIR lodged against them by the Andhra Pradesh Police on charges of sedition, as well as an order prohibiting the respondents from taking any coercive action against them. The FIR was filed against the petitioners in response to allegedly insulting speeches made by YSR MP K. Raghu Rama Krishna Raju on a segment hosted by the petitioner's channel in which he attacked the ruling party. Mr. Raju was discovered to be engaging in a systematic, schematic attempt to trigger tensions through his daily speeches... and by targeting different government dignitaries in such a way that people lose confidence in the government that they serve.

In its petition, the channel requested a stay on the subsequent investigation as well as an injunction prohibiting the police from taking any punitive action against the petitioner company.

The news channel claimed before the Court that the registered FIR is against it, especially for sedition, violates its fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which states that people must have the right to express their feelings and make their opinions known to the general public in order to preserve the democratic way of life. As a powerful means of mass communication, the press should be enabled to play a role in the growth of a strong and viable society. Citizens' press freedom would be jeopardised if they're unable to criticise, which would be anti-democratic.