- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
TRP Scam: Police says to Bombay High Court 'Republic TV is not An Accused; hence Barred to Challenge Proceedings'
TRP Scam: Police says to Bombay High Court 'Republic TV is not An Accused; hence Barred to Challenge Proceedings' The Mumbai Police stated to the Bombay High Court (HC) that Republic TV is trying to play 'victim' and attempting to transfer the probe in the Television Points Rating (TRP) scam from the Mumbai Police to CBI. The Mumbai Police submitted that only individuals and personnel...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
TRP Scam: Police says to Bombay High Court 'Republic TV is not An Accused; hence Barred to Challenge Proceedings'
The Mumbai Police stated to the Bombay High Court (HC) that Republic TV is trying to play 'victim' and attempting to transfer the probe in the Television Points Rating (TRP) scam from the Mumbai Police to CBI.
The Mumbai Police submitted that only individuals and personnel of Republic TV were named as suspects for the preliminary investigation. It has filed an affidavit before the HC and stated that Republic TV is not an accused before the Trial Court.
An affidavit was filed by the police responding to the rejoinder affidavit of the AGR Outlier Media Pvt. Ltd. which is a holding company for Republic TV Channels. It challenged the criminal proceedings initiated regarding TRP Scam against the channel and the employees.
The State police added that its rejoinder affidavit challenging the criminal proceedings and seeking transfer of probe to an agency other than Mumbai police cannot be done by an entity that is not an accused.
It is further mentioned by the police that "Merely naming such persons as suspects does not in any manner interfere with any right of such persons, much less a fundamental right. Such action cannot be the basis for quashing an entire investigation/ charge sheet/ supplementary charge-sheet."
They further said that the powers to quash the FIR/ charge sheet or investigation ought to be exercised with utmost caution.
The affidavit reads, "Reliance on documents that are not a part of the record of the Trial Court also only ought to be on the basis of unimpeachable documents produced by an accused in the rarest of rare cases."
The Mumbai Police contended that Republic TV has not been accused before the Trial Court and hence the material that is placed on record before this Court is not impeachable. The news channel is simply trying to play 'victim' and attempting to transfer the investigation to the CBI to cause a delay in procedure.
The affidavit stated, "These are independent offences and should not be seen from the prism of the imaginative and self-serving argument of vendetta as professed by the petitioners in the subject proceedings." The State police claimed that Republic TV has adopted a vacillating approach in its rejoinder.
The police emphasized the facts that earlier the Republic TV contended that there is no case at all and hence petition should be quashed. Now the contention changed that the investigation of the offences is within the sole domain of Telecom and Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). Hence, the investigation ought to be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Mumbai police stated that "Such averments are all the more undeserving of indulgence in that the petitioners have not been named as 'accused' in the charge sheet or supplementary charge sheet, as so interested in scuttling the investigations and taking the same away from the investigating agency that would ordinarily exercise jurisdiction."