PROCEDURE FOR ARREST IN CRPC- WAS ARNAB GOSWAMI’S ARREST LEGAL?

Arnab Goswami was recently arrested by Mumbai Police under Section 306 of IPC for allegedly abetting the suicide of Avnay Naik- who reportedly designed the sets of Republic TV.  The suicide was committed in 2018 and three people including Arnab Goswami were named in the suicide note in which Naik alleged that his dues were not paid by the channel. 

Chapter V of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 deals with the aspects of arrests. When a person is arrested, he/she is taken into the custody of an authority permitted by law and is then asked to answer the charges against him/her. An arrest can be made by a police officer, magistrate or any private person as per the provisions of CrPC.

Section 41 of CrPC allows a police officer to arrest a person for a cognizable offence without a warrant; whereas Section 42 allows them to arrest a person for a non-cognizable offence if the person refuses to give his/her name and residence. Section 43 vests a private person to arrest in certain circumstances. Further, an arrest can be made by the magistrate as per Section 44(1). 

Section 46 of CrPC states the mode of the arrest with or without a warrant. Section 46(1) states that, “in making an arrest the police officer or other person making the same shall actually touch or confine the body of the person to be arrested, unless there be a submission to the custody by word or action”

Section 50 of CrPC states that, “Every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest.”

Arnab Goswami was arrested for abetting suicide which is a cognizable offence. Therefore, as per Section 41 of CrPC, Police Officers did not acquire any warrant and moreover, the grounds of his arrest were informed to him. Additionally, as per the videos released in the public domain, Mr. Goswami was seen to be accusing the police of physically assaulting him. However, as per Section 46 of CrPC, the Police are permitted to touch the body of a person if he has not submitted to the custody by word or action. He was demanding to seek medical assistance before the arrest, however, section 54 of CrPC has laid down mandatory medical examination of the arrested which would have fulfilled the concerns. Thus, the arrest of Mr. Goswami prima facie appears to be legally performed. However, the arrest in the mentioned case was to be made a long time ago therefore one can reasonably question the motive behind this act. Even after two years of the complaint being filed, Mr. Goswami had not been arrested which depicts the failure of the justice system in India. 

The existing political influence on state police’s action renders the public at large helpless and devastated. As of yesterday, the Bombay HC denied Mr. Goswami’s bail application. 

Criminal Contempt: A Legal Point of View

Miss. Vidhi Dugad, Mumbai University.

Contempt of Court is a phrase that should be understood by interpreting the word- ‘contempt’. Contempt in simple words means disgrace or disrespect. The Judiciary holds an esteemed position in law, especially in the Indian Legal System. The Indian Legal System is based upon the principle of Rule of Law which means that the law is supreme. In such a state the judiciary is given even more importance because it is considered to be the guardian of laws[i].

The laws for contempt of court exist not to protect the judges or courts but to protect the justice system itself[ii]. The powers to punish for contempt are provided to the courts by the Constitution of India under Article 129[iii] which states that “The Supreme Court of India shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.” Furthermore, Article 215[iv] states “High Courts to be courts of record. Every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.” Therefore, the High Courts and the Supreme Court, both have the powers to punish for contempt.

As stated in The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 S.2(a), there are two major types of contempt:

  1. Civil Contempt[v]

Civil Contempt means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. Therefore, violation of any directions ordered by the court may amount to civil contempt.

  1. Criminal Contempt[vi]

This type of contempt is a more serious one and it is more difficult to determine. There are three things that may constitute as criminal contempt- scandalizing or lowering the authority of a court, prejudicing a judicial proceeding, and obstructing or interfering with administration of justice[vii]. Doing any act or publishing anything which has the above mentioned results amounts to criminal contempt.

Even lawyers are not excused in cases of contempt. For better understanding, we can look at the case of Jaswant Singh v. Virender Singh[viii]. In this case, there was a transfer petition filed which set up a serious allegation on the learned judge and his discharge of judicial functions. The Honourable Supreme Court in this case held that the claims and language used was not only derogatory but it also interfered with the conduction of a fair trial. Therefore, the lawyer was held in contempt. A similar verdict has been upheld several other times in very recent cases where judges have taken suo motu action against advocates who make derogatory allegations against judges[ix].

Media is regarded as the medium that voices public opinion and at the same time brings knowledge of the routine world to the people. However, sometimes the phenomenon of media trial arises. This term- ‘media trial’ is the idea that before the court passes a judgement, the accused has already been tried by the media in a public sphere and has been declared guilty. The Supreme Court of India in certain cases has referred to ‘trial by press’ as a ‘miscarriage of justice’[x]. In the case of M.P. Lohia v. State of W.B[xi], the Supreme Court went as far as warning the editor and writers that their articles would affect the case. Media Trials not only hinder the administration of justice, they also violate the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’[xii].

Time and again several cases of criminal contempt have been initiated and most of them have been ruled against the accused. In the Arundhati Roy Case[xiii], based on a statement worded- “By entertaining a petition based on an FIR that even a local police station does not see fit to act upon, the Supreme Court is doing its own reputation and credibility considerable harm” in Ms. Arundhati’s Affidavit, contempt of court proceedings were initiated against her. She responded to this by further criticising the court at several instances. Ms. Arundhati Roy was in the end punished for contempt. This case raised a lot of question on the contempt of court laws and their relevance today.

The most recent case of criminal contempt that has moved the minds of masses is the Prashant Bhushan Case[xiv]. Mr. Prashant Bhushan- a Senior Advocate practicing in the Supreme Court of India made two tweets on twitter. One was regarding the Chief Justice of India riding an expensive motorcycle without mask while the Supreme Court was closed due to the pandemic and a second one regarding how the democracy that is India was being destroyed with reference to the Supreme Court and past four CJIs. The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of this case. In the defence of Mr. Prashant Bhushan, it was argued that the first tweet was just a statement to show distress over the fact that the Supreme Court of India was not functioning which violates the citizen’s rights, where meanwhile the Chief Justice of India was enjoying without wearing a mask in times of Covid-19. It was said that if this was contempt the fundamental rights under Art. 19(1)(a)of the Constitution of India[xv] would be violated.

For the second tweet the defence argued that the tweet was a ‘bona fide opinion about the situation in the country’ by Mr. Bhushan. It was further argued that there was no basis for contempt of court accusation because all statements made were at the judge as a private individual. The defence further argued that the decision of the court be given after considering the situations and circumstances surrounding the facts and not only on the basis of the statements made. However, the final decision of this case came with a guilty verdict with a fine of Rs. 1/-.

Exceptions:

There are certain exceptions to contempt of court. Most of them are mentioned in The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:

  1. S. 3: Innocent publication and distribution of matter not contempt[xvi]. This means that if a person publishes something regarding a case or proceeding or interferes with the process of justice in an ongoing proceeding but has no reasonable grounds to believe that the proceeding is ongoing, they cannot be held in contempt for it,
  2. S. 4: Fair and accurate report of judicial proceeding not contempt[xvii]. and
  3. S. 5: Fair criticism of judicial acts not contempt[xviii]. Which means that comments or criticism on case, judgements, orders, or judicial decisions that have already been decided will not amount to contempt.

Conclusion:

Contempt of court has become a controversial topic overtime; especially criminal contempt. We have observed this in the Arundhati Roy[xix] case where there was a lot of opposition towards the guilty judgement. Furthermore, the contempt of court law is becoming increasingly redundant in other nation states. In England itself, from where India has inherited this law, courts are refusing to peruse contempt cases[xx]. The effect that Contempt of Court has on Freedom of Speech and Expression should not be ignored either. Contempt of Court is a reasonable restriction that can be imposed on the fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a). Therefore, it is important to analyse contempt from the perspective of a restriction especially after the Prashant Bhushan case[xxi] where Mr. Bhushan seeks a right to appeal[xxii]


[i]Spadika Jayaraj, Judicial Accountability and Contempt of Court: Comparing India with U.K., the U.S.A. and Singapore, 1.1 CALQ (2013) 18.

[ii]Attorney General v. Times Newspapers, [1973] 3 W.L.R. 298.

[iii] INDIA CONST. art. 129.

[iv] INDIA CONST. art. 215.

[v] Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

[vi] supra

[vii] Id at 5

[viii] Jaswant Singh v. Virender Singh, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 384.

[ix] Re: Ajay Kumar Pandey, (1996) 6 SCC 510.

[x] State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi, (1997) 8 SCC 386.

[xi]  M.P. Lohia v. State of W.B, (2005) 2 SCC 686.

[xii] Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 354.

[xiii] Re Arundhati Roy, (2002) 3 SCC 343: AIR 2002 SC 1375.

[xiv] Re Prashant Bhushan, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 646.

[xv] INDIA CONST. art. 215, cl. 1(a).

[xvi] Id at 5

[xvii] Id at 5

[xviii] Id at 5

[xix] Id at 13

[xx] A.P. Shah, The chilling effect of criminal contempt, The Hindu (JULY 27, 2020 00:45 IST), https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-chilling-effect-of-criminal-contempt/article32198138.ece.

[xxi] Id at 14.

[xxii] Legal Correspondent, Prashant Bhushan case | Plea to uphold right of appeal in contempt case, The Hindu (SEPTEMBER 13, 2020 08:28 IST), https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/prashant-bhushan-case-plea-to-uphold-right-of-appeal-in-contempt-case/article32589978.ece.

Create your website with WordPress.com
Get started