The Editors Guild, facing FIRs against some of its members for a report on the Manipur ethnic clashes, informed the Supreme Court that their visit to the state was at the request of the Indian Army.
Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, disclosed the existence of a letter dated 12 July 2023 from the Army to the Editors Guild.
“We did not volunteer… It’s a letter from the Army to the Editors Guild dated July 12, 2023… It’s an invitation by the Army to the Editors Guild saying see what’s happening there. Unethical and ex-parte reporting of incidents of Manipur by vernacular media,” Kapil Sibal told the three-judge bench presided by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.
However, during the court proceedings, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud expressed curiosity regarding the Army’s motivation for making such a request. He questioned why the Army would reach out to the Editors Guild, seeking their presence in Manipur.
In response, Kapil Sibal clarified that the Army’s intention was to obtain an impartial assessment of the events occurring in Manipur, presumably with the objective of ensuring an accurate and balanced understanding of the situation. Chief Justice Chandrachud read out the contents of the Army’s letter, which highlighted the need to examine whether certain media houses had violated journalistic guidelines, leading to a one-sided narrative.
Furthermore, Sibal urged the Court to allow the Editors Guild to pursue the matter before the Delhi High Court, expressing reservations about the Manipur High Court. He cited instances of lawyers withdrawing from cases and incidents such as the burning of a lawyer’s house in Manipur.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, opposing the request, contended that the High Court was functioning regularly, and litigants and lawyers could appear via video conferencing, making it a viable option. Mehta argued that writ petitions should not be filed solely to seek interim relief.
Sibal responded by questioning the sudden statement made by Manipur’s Chief Minister on 4 September, just a day after the FIRs were registered and the report submitted on 2 September.
As the discussion continued, the Chief Justice clarified that they were not considering quashing the case but deliberating whether it should be transferred to the Delhi High Court.
The Solicitor General agreed to take instructions and return with a response. He also cautioned against setting a precedent where virtually all counsel appeared before the Supreme Court following FIRs.
In conclusion, Chief Justice Chandrachud pointed out that this case involved a report, and the core issue was whether preparing such a report could be a subject of criminal action. The Court decided to post the matter for further hearing on September 15, ensuring that the interim protection granted to the petitioners from arrest would continue until then.