15 FIRs, one TV show: Anchor tells Supreme Court 'this is a political attack'

He aired a show about a lynching. Within days, 15+ police complaints were filed against him in different states. The anchor was Arnab Goswami. The show was about the Palghar lynching. The complainants were all affiliated with a single political party. The Supreme Court had to decide: was this a coordinated political attack on a journalist’s free speech, or a legitimate exercise of the criminal law?

When the broadcast went out

April 2020. A night. Arnab Goswami anchored a show on Republic TV and R Bharat about the Palghar lynching — a brutal incident where two sadhus and their driver were killed by a mob in Maharashtra. He criticised the state government's investigation. The show was sharp, partisan, unmistakably political.

Within days, something unusual happened. Police stations across Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, Jharkhand, and Jammu & Kashmir began registering FIRs (written complaints that start a police investigation) against Goswami. The complaints alleged offences under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code — promoting enmity between groups, defamation, criminal conspiracy. By the time the dust settled, there were over 15 FIRs and complaints, all arising from the same broadcast.

Then came a second FIR. On 2 May 2020, the Pydhonie Police Station in Mumbai registered FIR 137/2020 based on a later broadcast where Goswami allegedly blamed Muslims for the spread of COVID-19. The pattern was clear: one journalist, multiple states, multiple police stations, multiple FIRs, one cause of action — his speech.

The journalist's argument: this is a political attack

Goswami approached the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 of the Constitution (the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights). He asked for three things: quash all the FIRs, transfer the investigation to the CBI, and stay the investigations in the meantime.

His core argument: the multiple FIRs were not a genuine exercise of criminal law but a coordinated political attack designed to harass him into silence. The complainants were affiliated with a single political party — the Indian National Congress. The FIRs were filed in multiple states within days of each other, all based on the same broadcast.

The law on multiple FIRs is well-settled, he argued. The Supreme Court had held in TT Antony v State of Kerala and Upkar Singh v Ved Prakash that a second FIR on the same cause of action is not permissible. If the police receive information about the same offence again, they cannot register a fresh FIR — they must simply refer the new information to the court where the first FIR is pending. Goswami said the 15+ FIRs were a textbook violation of this rule. They were not separate crimes. They were the same crime, filed 15 times, in 15 different police stations, by 15 different complainants.

The state's counter: each broadcast is a separate offence

The Maharashtra government and the other states argued differently. They said each FIR was based on a separate broadcast or a separate instance of the same broadcast being viewed in a different jurisdiction. The offence of promoting enmity, they argued, is a continuing offence — every time the show was re-telecast or viewed in a new place, a fresh offence was committed. The multiple FIRs were therefore not a duplication but a legitimate response to multiple offences.

They also argued that Goswami had an equally efficacious remedy under Section 482 of the CrPC (the High Court's inherent power to quash an FIR) and should have approached the High Court first, not the Supreme Court directly. The CBI transfer was opposed on the ground that the accused cannot dictate the investigating agency of his choice.

What the Supreme Court decided

Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, sitting as a single judge, delivered the judgment on 19 May 2020. The court did three things. First, it quashed all FIRs and complaints except one — FIR 164/2020 at NM Joshi Marg Police Station, Mumbai. Second, it refused to transfer the investigation to the CBI. Third, it relegated Goswami to the High Court for any further relief regarding the surviving FIR.

The reasoning on multiple FIRs was sharp. The court held that filing multiple FIRs arising from the same telecast across different jurisdictions constitutes an abuse of process. The law from TT Antony and Upkar Singh was clear: a second FIR on the same cause of action is not permissible. The court did not accept the state's argument that each broadcast in a different jurisdiction created a fresh offence. The broadcast was one act. The complaints were one cause of action. The 15+ FIRs were therefore quashed.

But the court refused to quash the Mumbai FIR — the one relating to the COVID-19 broadcast. That FIR, the court said, was based on a different broadcast and a different set of allegations. It could not be said to arise from the same cause of action as the Palghar broadcast. The court also noted that Goswami had an equally efficacious remedy under Section 482 CrPC before the Bombay High Court. The Supreme Court would not entertain a direct Article 32 petition for quashing an FIR when the High Court could do the same job.

Why the CBI transfer was refused

Goswami had argued that the Mumbai police investigation was mala fide (done in bad faith) and that the case should be transferred to the CBI for a fair investigation. The court rejected this argument. Transfer of investigation to the CBI is an extraordinary power, the court said, citing State of West Bengal v Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights. It is used sparingly, only when the court is satisfied that the investigation is tainted or that the investigating agency is biased. Goswami's displeasure with the investigation, his unsubstantiated allegations of conflict of interest, and his objections to the methods of interrogation did not meet the threshold.

The court added a significant observation: an accused person has no right to dictate the line of interrogation, the nature of questions, or the period of questioning. The investigating agency retains full discretion over these matters. This was a clear message: a journalist cannot use the court to control how the police investigate him.

The defamation twist

One important legal point emerged from the judgment. The court held that under Section 199 of the CrPC, criminal defamation can only be prosecuted upon a complaint filed by the person who claims to be defamed. No FIR can be registered for defamation by a third party. The court therefore directed that the offence of defamation under Section 499 IPC be excluded from the scope of the investigation entirely. This was a significant procedural clarification: you cannot use the police machinery to file a defamation case against a journalist unless you are the person allegedly defamed, and you must file a private complaint, not an FIR.

THE PLAY: If multiple FIRs are filed against you across different states for the same act, approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash all but the first FIR — the Supreme Court will not entertain a direct Article 32 petition if the High Court can grant the same relief.

What this means for free speech

The judgment was a mixed bag. On one hand, the court struck down the coordinated use of multiple FIRs as an abuse of process. A journalist cannot be chased across 15 police stations for the same broadcast. That is a meaningful protection for free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. On the other hand, the court refused to quash the surviving FIR and refused to transfer the investigation to the CBI. The message was clear: free speech does not mean immunity from investigation. If a broadcast crosses the line into promoting enmity or defamation, the police can investigate — but they must do it through one FIR, not fifteen.

The court also made it clear that the Supreme Court is not the first stop for every journalist facing criminal cases. The High Court under Section 482 CrPC is the appropriate forum for quashing FIRs. This procedural point may have the effect of slowing down relief for journalists in the future, but it is consistent with the constitutional scheme: the High Court is the first guardian of liberty, not the Supreme Court.

The judgment ended where it began: with one broadcast and fifteen police complaints.