Karnataka HC Quashes FIR Against TV News Anchor Over Remarks On Prophet Muhammad

The Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR against a television news anchor over alleged remarks concerning Prophet Muhammad. The Court held that its earlier finding that there was no mens rea to incite a particular community, caste or religion in a case arising from the same programme would also apply to the present case, and consequently, the offence under Section 295A IPC was not made out. 

Justice Ravi V Hosmani allowed a petition filed by Ajit Hanumakkanavar, then Head–News & Programmes at Suvarna News, and quashed 2019 proceedings for offences under Sections 153A, 34, 295A and 505(2) IPC.

The case concerned a television discussion aired on December 27, 2018, regarding statements attributed to Prof. Bhagwan in his book Why Ram Mandir Is Not Needed. According to the complaint, Petitioner-Hanumakkanavar, who was anchoring the programme, made provocative statements while discussing the subject.

The complainant alleged that the anchor had used disrespectful words concerning the life and lifestyle of Prophet Muhammad, who, according to the complaint, was held in high esteem by Muslims in India and across the world. 

It was alleged that the remarks hurt the complainant's religious sentiments, attempted to create enmity between people belonging to different faiths and disturbed communal harmony.

Earlier FIR arising from same programme had been quashed

A crucial factor before the High Court was that another FIR had earlier been registered against the anchor and the manager of Suvarna News in relation to the same incident.

That FIR, registered as Crime No.292/2018 by Mangalore South Police Station for offences under Sections 153A and 505(2) IPC, had already been quashed by the High Court in an order dated January 24, 2019.

The said order had attained finality after dismissal of the Special Leave Petition filed against it, the present petitioner's counsel submitted.

In the earlier judgment, the High Court had held that the anchor's statements were made while conducting a panel discussion and that there was no mens rea to incite a particular community, caste or religion.

The Court had observed that an omnibus statement expressing two different views to enable panelists to give their views would not, by itself, amount to blasphemy. It had also held that the statements did not attract Sections 153A or 505(2) IPC as there was no reference to any particular caste, community or religion.

The earlier judgment had further discussed the protection of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the restrictions permissible under Article 19(2).

Complainant argued Section 295A made the case different

Opposing the present petition, the complainant's counsel argued that the earlier order could not automatically apply because the present FIR additionally invoked Section 295A IPC.

It was argued that the manner in which the statements were made demonstrated a deliberate and malicious intention to hurt the religious sentiments of Muslims. The State, meanwhile, submitted that the complaint disclosed cognizable offences and therefore registration of the FIR was justified.

The High Court rejected the distinction. Justice Hosmani noted that the Court had specifically found in the earlier proceedings that there was no mens rea to incite a particular community, caste or religion. The Court held that this finding would also operate in relation to Section 295A of the IPC.

"It is seen, this Court has specifically held absence of mens rea to incite a particular community, caste or religion. It is observed that an omnibus statement expressing two different views to enable panelists to express their views would not be blasphemous. It is also observed that there is no reference to any particular community. Though with said observations, it was held registration of FIR for offences punishable under Sections 153A and 505 (2) of IPC was illegal, said observations/findings would inure to petitioner even insofar as offence under Section 295 A of IPC" Court remarked.

The Court particularly noted that Section 295A IPC requires a “deliberate and malicious intention of outraging religious feelings”, making the mental element an essential component of the offence.

"Consequently, registration of impugned FIR would be illegal warranting interference" the Court held.

The High Court also relied on its earlier assessment of the television programme. In that judgment, the Court had noted that the programme had been partially viewed by the Court in open Court in the presence of the advocates. It had concluded that the statements made by the accused did not constitute the alleged offences and were not such as to incite communal disharmony.

The earlier judgment had described freedom of speech as the “quintessence of every democracy” and observed that the doctrine of free speech had evolved as a bulwark against the State's power to regulate speech.

The petitioner had also argued that multiple complaints relating to the same incident were impermissible.

The High Court referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, Krishna Lal Chawla v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Tarak Das Mukharjee v. State of Uttar Pradesh, noting that multiple complaints concerning the same incident by the same complainant have been held to be illegal.

The Court, however, noted that the Supreme Court's decision in S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal had proceeded on the circumstance that complaints had been filed at different locations, causing inconvenience to the accused in defending herself.

For these reasons, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in 2019 case against the petitioner.

Case Title: SRI AJIT HANUMAKKANAVAR v STATE OF KARNATAKA and Anr