"If we as a Constitutional Court do not protect liberty, then who will?" Read Justice Chandrachud observations during Arnab Goswami bail hearing

The Supreme Court hearing in the plea for interim bail moved by Republic TV's Editor-in-Chief, Arnab Goswami today saw the top Court making several pertinent remarks touching upon free speech and personal liberty. .The matter was taken up this morning by a Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee. The hearing is presently underway:.Supreme Court grants Arnab Goswami interim bail: Read LIVE ACCOUNT of court proceedings here.The hearing saw Justice Chandrachud being vocal about the role of Courts in the protection of personal liberty. Highlights of the Court's oral observations today include the following. .1. On the limits of defining "abetment of suicide"It may be recalled that Goswami stands accused of abetting interior designer, Anvay Naik's suicide on account of failing to pay dues owed. In this context, Justice Chandrachud queried. "We are assuming the allegations of FIR as gospel truth but even then, is a case of Section 306 made out? In a matter like this when some dues was not paid, would a suicide mean abetment? Would it not be a travesty of justice if someone is denied bail for this?Noting further that the deceased is stated to have been under mental stress, the Judge also remarked,"For Section 306, abetment there needs to be actual incitement. Does one owes money to another and they commit suicide - would it be abetment?".2. Constitutional Courts should protect libertyJustice Chandrachud proceeded to remark, "If we don't interfere in this case today, we will walk on path of destruction. If left to me I won't watch the channel and you may differ in ideology but Constitutional courts will have to protect such freedoms..."The Judge recounted, during the hearing,"A woman was hauled up for a tweet in West Bengal as she criticised the lockdown enforcement. She was issued summons under 41A. Is this fair? This cannot happen." He added,."Forget Arnab Goswami for a moment, we are a Constitutional court.... If we as a Constitutional Court do not lay down law and protect liberty, then who will?" Justice DY Chandrachud.3. High Court has not dealt with the basic questionJustice Chandrachud remarked, on this aspect,"Here, is there an active incitement to suicide? Can you say that it is a case for custodial interrogation? High Court has written 56 pages order but had not dealt with the basic question... was an offence made out prima facie?.4. If you don't like a channel, don't watch itThe Court today also witnessed arguments made for Goswami that the case lodged against him was politically motivated in view of reports carried by Republic TV, where he is editor-in-chief. Justice Chandrachud observed,"Victim (Naik's family) is entitled to recourse as in proper and fair probe. But answer is simple. If you don't like a channel then don't watch it…Government needs to ignore all of this and we don't think elections don't depend on all this..5. All should be responsible in matters of free speechAppearing for the State of Maharashtra, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal pointed out that the freedom of speech and expression is subject to reasonable restrictions. "Article 19 (1)(a) is not an absolute right", Sibal said.Justice Chandrachud responded, "When this matter was before the CJI, CJI said in a subtle way that responsibility is on all the sides.".6. Not a terror caseAppearing for the State, Senior Advocate Amit Desai also submitted that Goswami appeared to have chosen a forum suited to him, rather than proceed with an ordinary bail application before the sessions court. Desai said, "The petitioners filed a bail application before the Magistrate and then withdrew this and chose a forum that suited them."Justice Chandrachud, however, responded "Technicality, this cannot be a ground to deny someone personal liberty. This is not a case of terrorism."