Visited Manipur after an alert from the Army: Editors Guild of India to Supreme Court

 The apex court also decided to examine the Guild’s plea for transfer of the FIR to the jurisdiction of Delhi High Court from that of Manipur High Court

File picture of Meena Hangsing, 45, with her son Tonsing Hangsing, 7, who were among the three burnt alive in an ambulance in Manipur in June. This is one of the incidents the army is learnt to have mentioned in its letter to the Editors Guild of India.: Sourced by the Telegraph

R. Balaji, TT, New Delhi, 12.09.23 : The Editors Guild of India’s fact-finding team that Manipur police have booked on charges of spreading disharmony had visited the state after an alert from the army, the Supreme Court was informed on Monday.

During the hearing, the bench extended the protection granted to the four journalists till September 15, and Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud wondered orally whether the publication of a subjective analysis by a group of journalists could be a ground for the registration of an FIR.

The apex court also decided to examine the Guild’s plea for transfer of the FIR to the jurisdiction of Delhi High Court from that of Manipur High Court.

Representing the Guild journalists, senior advocate Kapil Sibal told the bench, which included Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra, that the situation in Manipur made it "hazardous" to visit the state.

Manipur police have registered an FIR against Guild president Seema Mustafa, Seema Guha, Sanjay Kapoor and Bharat Bhushan under penal sections 153A (promoting enmity between communities), 298 (deliberately inciting religious feelings), 505 (statements conducive to public mischief) and 120B (criminal conspiracy).

“We did not volunteer to go there.... We got a letter from the army. Please see the letter of the army to the Editors Guild,” Sibal said. “They said, ‘See what is happening there’….”

Justice Chandrachud asked: “But why should the army invite you?”

Sibal replied: “They wanted us to make an objective assessment of what is happening. We published our report on September 2. On September 3 night, we were prosecuted for offences under the Indian Penal Code. The chief minister also makes a statement against us and holds a press conference. How can we be prosecuted for the publication of a report?”

Justice Chandrachud then turned towards solicitor-general Tushar Mehta, who was appearing for the Manipur government, and asked: “It is a report after all. The basic point he is arguing is that they have only filed a report that may be a matter of their subjective opinion.

“This is not a case of somebody on the ground having committed an offence. They have published a report. Can that be a ground for an FIR?”

Mehta said he would not argue the merits of the case and, instead, submit an affidavit explaining the state’s stand.

In the letter sent in July from the 3 Corps Headquarters, the army is learnt to have drawn the attention of the Guild to how the allegedly biased reporting by some media outlets in the Imphal Valley (where the Meiteis are in the majority) was keeping the situation on the boil. The army listed three instances to buttress its contention.

The army reportedly requested the Guild to examine the reports on the three incidents, ascertain whether journalism norms had been violated and, if so, take action.

Two days later, the Guild issued a list of dos and don'ts for media outlets while covering the conflict in Manipur.

The army letter appears to have been a factor that prompted the Guild to form a fact-finding team to collect information from the ground. It is not clear if the army extended a formal invitation but without going to the state, it would have been impossible for the Guild to ascertain the facts about local reporting.

The Guild mentioned the army representation in its statement on August 7 that formed the fact-finding team.

On Monday, Sibal said the journalists’ body would prefer the FIR matter to be transferred to Delhi. He referred to how the house of a senior advocate representing the Hyderabad-based professor, Kham Khan Suan Hausing, was vandalised recently in Manipur.

Mehta suggested that the petitioners appear virtually before Manipur High Court. He accused Sibal of politicising the issue.

“We will not quash the FIR but we will examine whether such a plea could be heard by Delhi High Court,” Justice Chandrachud said.

While extending the protection to the journalists till September 15, the bench asked the Manipur government to file an affidavit explaining its position on the matter and on the Guild’s plea for transfer of the case to Delhi.

On September 6, the bench had stayed till September 11 “any coercive action” against the journalists by the Manipur government. The FIRs had been registered on the basis of separate complaints from two citizens who claimed to be social activists.