The recent case of the Republic TV Editor-in-Chief, journalist Arnab Goswami has exhibited the power of Article 32 and it showed how much the Apex Court of India values the so called “Personal Liberty” of the citizen of India, but unfortunately the same court denied the privilege of this article to another Journalist who is not the “Arnab Goswami”. So what is this Article 32 and why it is used only in the case of some selected citizens of India? Let us take a look…
Lately, the mention of Article 32 has been doing more rounds than usual in the media. All of this is for a good reason. Recently on November 4th Republic Tv Editor-in-chief, Arnab Goswami, was arrested by the Mumbai police in relation to alleged abetment to suicide of Anvay Naik in 2018. There was uproar and rejoicing at the same time.
In a recent string of events, the Article 32 of the constitution has been used in ways of partiality.
His case was heard by the Bombay High Court. However, a lot of people stated that his arrest was illegal and was of personal vendetta carried out by the Shiv Sena Government. In relation to this, Chief Justice of India, S A Bobde said that Arnab could file for Article 32.
What is Article 32? In simple terms, this article gives an individual the right to move to the Supreme Court if they feel their right has been “unduly deprived”. Under this article, the parliament can also entrust any other court to exercise the power of the SC, provided it is within its Jurisdiction. This understanding of the Article 32 is very important due to the string of vents that followed.
On 5th October, Siddique Kappan, a journalist from Kerela was arrested on basis of allegedly being part of a conspiracy to inflame religious enmity over the Hathras rape. On 6th October, a habeas corpus plea was filed by the Kerala Union of Working Journalists in the Supreme Court.
Arnab Goswami was released on bail within 7 days of his arrest while Siddique Kappan’s bail was denied and he waits ever since his arrest for justice by the Supreme Court, under the same Article 32.
What’s interesting in all this is a recent statement made by CJI Bobde in relation to the Siddique case and Article 32.
“We are trying to discourage Article 32 petitions” he said while adjourning the plea of habeas corpus for Siddique to Friday, 20th November.
But when the (CJI) was handling the plea of “Arnab Goswami”, he warned the Secretary of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly saying “how dare he says? What is Article 32 for?’ after which he issued a contempt notice to Maharashtra Assembly Secretary just days before his statement on the Siddique case.
This entire scenario has raised questions over how well the constitution is being upheld, how it feels partial and suppressive. Arnab’s case was heard on a holiday, even though he was in judicial custody and later released on bail within a span of 7 days.
Delayed justice, not just to Siddique, but to a lot more cases, such as petitions against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, preventive detentions in Kashmir, and the challenge to the dilution of Article 370. And the appeal against the gag order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court . These are just a few of the many pending cases that require to be dealt with.
People have begun questioning the judgement of CJI with respect to his contradictory statements. The urgency given and denied to cases raise questions on how disparity is being done between people, whether due to their positions or connections, or even the crime.
What is your views on this? Do you think whatever happened was right? Does the law is made for the selected people with the privileges?
