Found proof against Republic TV, Arnab in TRP case: Police to High Court

Mumbai: The Maharashtra government on Wednesday informed the Bombay High Court that it is not inclined to continue with its earlier stance of not taking any coercive action against Arnab Goswami’s Republic TV and its employees in the TRP manipulation case.

Kapil Sibal, senior counsel, who is appearing for the state government, informed the court that in light of the evidence that has now emerged, including a forensic report submitted by BARC (Broadcast Audience Research Council) to investigation agency outlining the alleged wrong-doings of former chief executive Partho Dasgupta, the state government is not inclined to stick to its earlier stance.

“The lower court has rejected the bail plea of BARC’s former CEO. This will have a bearing on this case,” argued Sibal. “In light of that, we don’t want to continue with the earlier statement (of December).”


On December 16, the state government had informed the court that it will continue investigation but will not take any coercive action against Republic TV and its employees. Also, if the state intended to take any coercive action, it will come to the court before doing so.

On Wednesday a division bench headed by Justice SS Shinde and Justice MS Karnik allowed the request of the counsel for the Goswami promoted company, who sought to adjourn the case to another date due to a medical emergency in his family. The court will hear the matter further on January 15.

Sibal said he was agreeing to adjourn the case only because of the medical emergency, but they (state government) had changed its position on coercive action since they've got enough evidence against the petitioners.

ARG Outlier Media Pvt Ltd, a company that runs Republic TV, and Goswami had originally approached the court seeking to quash the FIR. They have also asked the court to transfer the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). However, after the Maharashtra Police filed a chargesheet, Goswami and the company sought more time to amend their petition, which the court had allowed.