New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to journalist Kommineni Srinivas Rao who was arrested by the Andhra Pradesh Police in relation to offensive remarks made by a panellist in a television show hosted by him. A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan passed the order in a writ petition filed by the journalist challenging his arrest and remand. Rao was arrested from Hyderabad on June 9 and was remanded to judicial custody in relation to comments made by a guest in a show hosted by him in Sakshi TV. Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, for the petitioner, submitted that the remarks were not made by him but by a panellist. “This case is like that of Navika or Sardesai…” Justice Mishra commented. “Absolutely,” Dave concurred. The bench asked the State how the petitioner could be arrested for the statements made by someone else. “Someone else is making the statement. How can this be?” Justice Manmohan asked Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who was appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh. “He was goading and abetting the man who was making that statement. He was laughing,” Rohatgi said. “When someone makes an outrageous statement, we laugh it off. They can’t be termed co-conspirators, Justice Manmohan replied. “Everyday this is happening!” Justice Mishra stated. “This is not a case of somebody being a standby. He is not a bystander. He is a part of the same channel,” Rohatgi replied. “But he is not saying this!” Justice Mishra pointed out. “He is goading the fellow. You can’t go around saying things like it is a capital of sex workers, Rohatgi asserted. Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, also for the State, submitted that the statement was not merely defamatory as it was said that Andhra Pradesh was in the forefront when it came to sex work. The State’s lawyers also argued that the petitioner should rather approach the High Court and pointed out that his bail petition was pending. However, the bench chose to order his release, considering that the statement was not made by him. The bench also mentioned the need to protect journalistic freedom.
Source link
