Team of ABN Andhra Jyothi Media channel can legitimately take the credit for sending a Governor out of office, by stirring up the public opinion, especially through women’s organizations. Tiwari bowed down and resigned on ‘health’ grounds. Congress party claimed that he resigned on moral grounds. This contradiction proves the media’s allegation ‘morally’ though, legally to be proved.  Even as the Tiwari was stepping out of office, the ABN Andhra Jyothi, and various other websites including google and youtube, went on publishing the content forcing the powers that be at Delhi to ‘advise’ Tiwari to leave Raj Bhavan. The content exposed involve serious allegations that Tiwari was at the center point of bringing women from Uttaranchal and exploited in Raj Bhawan, where in the Channel alleged that some MPs were also involved in exploitation.

However, the society hopes that Channel would fought against executive before the judiciary to reverse the interim order of AP High Court commanding the channel not to telecast, as the exposure was not to demean but to make Gubernatorial office meaningful. It is the duty of media to force the political parties to appoint the people of high moral values to the top offices. If ABN could secure a judicial precedent by proving the point that Constitution did not offer any protection to ‘office’ of Governor as such in these circumstances, set a great  example to the vibrant media.

Though, there is no provision in the Constitution to impeach the Governor, it is always open to dismiss that office-holder. The immunity under Article 361 is confined to ‘tenure of office’, the law should take its own course to prosecute the person alleged to have committed heinous immoral acts while holding the ‘office’. It is against the law to have allowed such persons to honourably resign abdicating the constitutional obligation of prosecuting such persons. Political parties always washed off their hands after driving person out of office forgetting the rule of law.

The exposure and Court Order

Perhaps for the first time a Telugu TV Channel and newspaper (Andhra Jyothi) came out with scathing allegations through sting visuals against the personal life of Governor Narayan Dutt Tiwari and the Division Bench of AP High Court issued an injunction restraining from telecasting the same. On the Christmas Morning, the Andhra Jyothi daily greeted its readers with a banner announcement that its TV channel was going to telecast a sensational sex scandal involving the Governor indicating the illegal trafficking from the highest seat of power. Apprehending a sensational and offensive exposure through audio-visuals, the Officer on Special Duty of Rajbhavan rushed to the residence of Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh Justice A R Dave seeking to move a House Motion in spite being a non-working holiday. The C J admitted the letter of OSD as Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and constituted within hours, a Division Bench with himself and another Justice C V Nagarjun Reddy, who read the Telugu news item and translated it to the Chief Justice, which the Bench felt would be ‘highly objectionable programme which is likely to demean and denigrate the gubernatorial office and cause immense harm to the public interest and that the damage is likely irretrievable”. The Bench directed the ABN Andhra Jyothi Channel, Hyderabad to refrain from undertaking any such telecast as announced. The Bench also directed the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad to enforce the order forthwith and the matter was posted for next step on 30th December 2009.

By the time the order reached, the Channel repeatedly beamed the clippings with frozen and blurred scenes followed by spate of telephones and SMS opinions in scrolling on tv screen. The Rajbhavan road became center for demonstrations of various women organizations leading to dharnas, burning effigies of Governor and arrests. While Andhra Jyothi was beaming these reports though forced to withhold the telecast of restrained scenes, the other channels were not at all bothered even to refer to this controversy.

Legally speaking, prior restraints on print media publications are considered violative of freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a), as the freedom means absence of pre-censorship and that the media has autonomy in selecting the form, content and circulation. This freedom of speech restricting pre-censorship is not available with reference to cinematography as the Cinematography Act 1952 regulates the pre-view and certification of viewer ship of the movie before it is released for public exhibition. The TV channels stand in between (print and film media), as there is no pre-censorship against its news or other programmes. Restraining the telecasts like this could be a new direction against the media. In Andhra Jyothi case, the High Court gave an interim direction before the media represented their case, based on the contention of the counsel for the Governor. It is also difficult to term it as prior-restraint because the telecast of story already happened, though further repetition was stopped.

An executive restriction on media expression, however reasonable it may be, is not permitted by the constitution. What was envisaged by Article 19(2) was creating a ground for ‘reasonable restriction’ through legislation. That means if the state wants it could bring a law imposing a new restriction, reasonability of which could be examined and reviewed by the judiciary. Broadcasting Regulation Bill has been made to secure such pre-telecast restraining power to the executive which could not be passed due to stiff opposition from media criticizing that it would amount to violation of media freedom. While the bill is in cold-storage, the Andhra Jyothi channel stirred up the issue of broadcast regulation, even as the judiciary was moved to consider these highly contentious questions.

Andhra Jyothi channel episode with a tirade against the Governor also raised other serious issues like invasion of privacy of Constitutional office-holders through sting operation, procedure and justifiability of sting operations, conditions for acceptability of electronic recording of scenes, protecting the honor of top executive office through injunctions, etc.

It is yet another legal complexity as to how to prosecute the alleged crimes against the top public servants like Governors. In fact the Governor is the sanctioning authority to say yes to probe into corruption and other charges against higher public servants. Who has to be approached for a probe into the allegations, if any against the Governor himself?

Article 361 offers a very specific immunity from the criminal proceedings during the tenure of office of President and Governors of the states.  Hence even if the allegations are found to be prima facie established, the prosecution has to wait until the concerned Governor stepped down from the office. It could have become a very sensational exposure up setting the on-going-coverage of the separatist agitation in Andhra Pradesh that was kicked off again with ambiguous statement of Union Minister for Home P Chidambaram saying extensive consultations would be preceding the process of formation of Telangana. But the other media did not pick up the thread and the story is drowned in the din of separatist agitation news.

This should also occasion the nation to consider the issue of immunity, the relic of British Pre-Independence law- Government of India Act, 1935 which granted complete exemption to top executives from prosecution. The Independent India has unhesitatingly continued the same in its own Constitution. Time has come to declare that rule of law should be same for the rulers and the ruled.