BHARADWAAJ MEDIA PVT LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common order, I shall dispose of the above two writ petitions, preferred under article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr. P. C seeking issuance of a writ for quashing the FIR No. 96 of 2007 under Section 12, 13 of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120b ipc, Police Station Parliament Street, New delhi registered on a complaint of Mr. Sanjay bhatia, Assistant Commissioner of Police, special Team, Crime Branch, Mr. Bhatia made a complaint that on 12th December, 2005, a Private Channel telecast a programme called "operation Duryodhan", showing some Members of Parliament including Dr. Chhatrapal Singh Lodha of Rajya Sabha, receiving money for raising questions in the parliament. The matter was referred to a committee on Ethics of Parliament. The committees recommended in its report to proceed against the corrupt middlemen, private secretaries, personal assistants of mps officially working in Parliament, who were instrumental in arranging the meeting of undercover reporters with Members of parliament and acted as conduits in murky deals. One Harish Badola has been mentioned in the complaint as middleman, who was used as a conduit by journalists and who received an amount of Rs. 25,000/- on behalf of Dr. Chhatrapal Singh Lodha, which included Rs. 5000/- as his own share. Mr. Harish Badola, after receiving the amount, arranged a meeting of the undercover journalists with Dr. Chhatrapal Singh Lodha. It is reported that Harish Badola in connivance with Ms. Suhasini Raj of cobrapost. com hatched up a criminal conspiracy with ulterior motive for obtaining pecuniary advantage and thereby he and the journalist committed offence of criminal misconduct under Section 13 (l) (d) of prevention of Corruption Act read with section 120 of IPC.

(2.) THE FIR was also registered against the officials of Cobrapost. com, TV Channel 7 and Aaj Tak, which, according to complainant, committed an offence of abetment, as defined under Section 12 of prevention of Corruption Act, by carrying out Operation Duryodhan and telecasting the same. It is also stated that they have acted in contravention of the procedure given under Rule 295 of the Rules of procedure and Conduct of Business in the council of States regarding unethical behaviour or breach of code of conduct by a Member.

(3.) QUASHING of the instant FIR is sought on the ground that the registration of the fir was a gross and blatant violation of the rights of the petitioners who had undertaken an operation in public interest to expose the corruption and criminal acts on the part of some Members of Parliament and their agents. The action of the petitioners of exposing corruption was necessary so that the people may know the acts of their elected representatives. The exposure of criminal activities on the part of the Members of parliament could not have been done without resorting to undercover investigation. Being associated with Fourth estate, it was the duty of the petitioners to bring truth to the knowledge of people. The petitioners acted in exercise of their rights guaranteed under Article 19 (l) (a) of the constitution and the FIR registered against the petitioners was an illegal act resulting into unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental rights of the petitioners of free speech. The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners amounted to unreasonable restrictions on fundamental rights of the petitioners as there was no bar on trap being laid by a person other than the police officer to expose the criminal activities of offenders and perpetuators of crime. It is also stated that the reporters of the petitioners deposed on oath before the parliamentary Committees making full and truthful disclosures about all facts and the parliamentary Inquiry Committee raised no doubts as to the bona fides of the reporters and the action against the Members of parliament was initiated by the respective house on the basis of allegations made in the tapes and transcripts. It is also stated that the acts of the petitioners were protected under Section 24 of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the petitioners have statutory immunity from prosecution under Section 12 of the act. The reporters of the petitioner made a statement in the proceedings under Rules 269 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Lok Sabha, against the members of Parliament before the parliamentary Inquiry Committees and the petitioner has statutory immunity from prosecution under Section 24 of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner conducted the sting operation to expose corruption and had not committed any offence under the law of India and the impugned FIR was nothing but an attempt to stifle a free and independent media.