Kerala journalist Siddique Kappan's arrest and custody found a mention in the Supreme Court’s hearing in connection with Arnab Goswami's bail plea on Wednesday, 12 November, LiveLaw reported.
The mention was made by Kapil Sibal, who was appearing for the Maharashtra government. "A Kerala journalist was arrested by UP Police when was going to Hathras to report. We came to this court under Article 32. The court said go to lower court. The petition was posted after four weeks. Such things are also happening," Sibal was quoted as saying towards the end of the hearing.
Kappan’s Case
Journalist Siddique Kappan, CFI members Atiq-ur Rehman, Masood Ahmed and their driver Alam were held by the UP Police on 5 October while they were going to Hathras after the alleged gang rape and murder of a Dalit woman had garnered national headlines.
The police had claimed that acting on a tip, they intercepted a car at a toll plaza, after which the four occupants were interrogated and taken into custody.
On 7 October, the UP police had charged Kappan, Rahman, Ahmed, and Alam with sedition and Section 17 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, which pertains to punishment for raising funds for a terrorist act.
A habeas corpus petition against the journalist's custody was filed in the apex court by the Kerala Union of Working Journalists (KUWJ), calling the action illegal and unconstitutional.
Goswami’s Case
The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted interim bail to Republic TV Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami in connection with a 2018 abetment of suicide case against him.
“We are of the considered view that the high court was in error in rejecting the application for grant of interim bail. We accordingly order and direct that the appellants shall be released on interim bail immediately, subject to each of them furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000 each.”
A vacation bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee heard the plea by Goswami against the decision of the Bombay High Court, which had rejected his request for interim bail on 9 November.
The judges raised serious concerns about deprivation of personal liberty in Goswami’s case after considering the FIR against him and observing that it was difficult to see how the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code could be made out in a commercial dispute.
(With inputs from LiveLaw.)
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)