Human rights defenders must protests harassment by state for both their friends and their opponents in order to preserve the constitution and rule of law, writes INDIRA JAISING.
——-
The arrest of Arnab Goswami, Editor-in-Chief of Republic TV, on the basis of a complaint made in May of abetment of suicide in which ‘A’ summary report was filed, exposes the political use of the power of the police all over the country and in every State.
What has happened in this case is no different from the political use of the police in states like Uttar Pradesh to serve political aims. Much as we oppose the polarising and communally charged journalism of Arnab Goswami, we also believe that the Rule of Law must prevail with an even hand and no person can be targeted with arrest only because he or she criticises the government of the day.
Neither our friends nor our opponents can be targeted and harassed by the power of arrest. Simply because Arnab Goswami viscously called for the arrest of actor Rhea Chakraborty on charges of abetment of suicide (she was never arrested for that alleged offence), we can’t approve of the manner in which the arrest of Arnab Goswami took place.
Due process of law would require a summons to be issued to Goswami under Section 91 for interrogation before any arrest could be made.
Abetment to suicide requires an overt act by word or deeds driving a person to commit suicide. It remains to be seen during investigation whether there was any such overt act and no comments can be made on that at this stage.
Given that an investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC was commenced on the basis of a complaint made by the family in May 2020 for re-investigation, due process of law should have been followed.
Due process of law would require a summons to be issued to Goswami under Section 91 for interrogation before any arrest could be made.
Moreover, all accused persons have a right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution and at the peak period of interrogation, he could be asked to record statements under 161 of the CrPC, which are not admissible as evidence. If necessary, an arrest could be made only if the police come to the conclusion that the accused is not cooperating with the investigation. Even so, questions given in police custody by an accused are not admissible in evidence.
Those of us who are committed to the Right to Life and Personal Liberty guaranteed under the Constitution, and hence the Rule of Law must be equally alarmed by the misuse of the power of arrest by all State Governments regardless of the political party in power.
The sudden arrest of Arnab Goswami without issuing a summons under Section 91 of the CrPC, smacks of political vendetta. Those of us who are committed to the Right to Life and Personal Liberty guaranteed under the Constitution, and hence the Rule of Law must be equally alarmed by the misuse of the power of arrest by all State Governments regardless of the political party in power.
At the root of all these problems is the fact that the police are controlled by the Department of Home, which works under the Home Minister. This results in the politicisation of the police powers. Despite consistent demands calling for police reforms, the situation has not changed.
Our role as human rights defenders requires us the defend the rule of law for all.
(Indira Jaising is a senior Supreme Court lawyer, a human rights activist and founder of The Leaflet. Views are personal.)
