The Hindu : National : “Register case against guilty MPs”

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Nov 28, 2007
ePaper

National

National

“Register case against guilty MPs”

Staff Reporter

Cash-for-query scam: court won’t quash FIR against journalist

NEW DELHI: Rejecting the plea that journalists have immunity from prosecution for making use of under-covers for exposing corruption against public servants as they do it in the public interest, the Delhi High Court on Monday refused to quash an FIR against Aniruddha Bahal of the news website cobrapost.com.

The court at same time directed the Delhi police to lodge a case under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption (P.C.) Act against MPs who were held guilty by the Committee on Ethics of Parliament for taking money for tabling questions in Parliament and were later disqualified on the committee’s recommendation.

The MPs were caught on camera purportedly accepting cash in a sting operation titled “Duryodhan” conducted by the news website and telecast by news channel Aj Tak in 2005.

Mr. Bahal sought the quashing of the FIR lodged under Sections 12 (punishment for abetment of offences) and 13 (criminal misconduct by public servants) of the P.C. Act and Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of IPC on the ground that he had acted in exercise of his rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution.

He further submitted that the registration of the FIR was illegal, resulting in unreasonable restrictions on his fundamental right of free speech. He justified the use of under-covers submitting that the expose could not have been made possible without resorting to an under-cover investigation and being associated with the fourth estate, it was his duty to bring out the truth to the public knowledge. Also, he enjoyed statutory immunity from prosecution under Section 12 of the P.C. Act as his acts were protected under Section 24 (statement by bribe giver not to subject him to prosecution) of the same Act.

Dismissing his contentions, Mr. Justice S.N. Dhingra said that the petitioner could claim protection as claimed by him during the trial and not at the investigation stage. It was admitted by the petitioner that the offence was committed. However, his contention was that it was committed by the MPs, not by him, Mr. Justice Dhingra said.

The court said in its order that the police shall probe the entire offence involving middlemen, MPs and others who indulged in corruption and accepted bribe, and the investigation must be completed within six months from the date of the order.

However, it gave liberty to Mr. Bahal who claimed to have acted in the public interest to seek protection from arrest. It warned police not to keep the MPs out of the scope of investigation and action.

The Parliament Street police had registered the FIR on a suggestion of the Ethics Committee to take action against the middlemen, private secretaries of the MPs and officials in the Parliamentary Party offices who had been instrumental in arranging the meetings of reporters with the MPs.

Mr. Justice Dhingra said: “The FIR registered against select persons at the behest of the Ethics Committee exposes the thinking that corruption itself is not bad, but its exposure is bad because it brings the institution to disrepute.”

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National