On Monday, the Maharashtra Police approached the Supreme Court against journalist and Editor-in-Chief of Republic TV Arnab Goswami, accusing him of using his position to indulge in “vicious propaganda” against the police force and the Mumbai Police Commissioner.
It said the conduct of the journalist was “smeared with arrogance.”
The State Police is investigating two FIRs — a hate case registered against Mr. Goswami and a complaint filed by the journalist alleging he was attacked. In the first case, Mr. Goswami was questioned by the police. Two persons were arrested in the second case.On April 24, the apex court had protected Mr. Goswami from arrest in the hate case.
The State Police said the court should set the record straight that the “indulgence” granted to him on April 24 is not some “kind of a licence to indulge in unwarranted sensationalism and to ridicule, denigrate and defame the police department and its officers and to dictate the course of investigations in the way and manner of his choice and also to cause subtle threats and intimidate the investigating agency.”
It asked the court to pass orders to insulate the investigating agency from any pressure, threat or coercion from the petitioner and to it to carry out its lawful obligations in a fair and transparent manner.”
The State Police, in a scathing petition before the apex court, accused Mr. Goswami of repeatedly using his position as well as his channel to make “unjustified, unwarranted, disparaging, ridiculing, false and derogatory statements against the police, including the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai.”
It said the journalist attempted to tarnish the image of the Police Commissioner by making statements accusing him of involvement in “some scam by India Bulls.”
The police accused Mr. Goswami of making statements during a debate on his Republic Bharat channel aimed at “browbeating, terrorising and intimidating the investigating officer.”
The State said Mr. Goswami’s statements were aimed solely at browbeating the investigating officers “by creating a fear psychosis that they would also face dire consequences and would be publicly ridiculed if they proceed for investigations in the two FIRs, one lodged by the petitioner and one against him, against his dictates.”