Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Rajasthan High Court, while granting a significant relief to Arnab Goswami, the Editor-in-Chief of Republic Media Network, has stayed a First information Report (FIR) against him. The court observed that the FIR appears to be aimed at intimidating and silencing independent journalism, which is a fundamental pillar of democracy.

Justice Farjand Ali, presiding over the court, delivered the ruling, while hearing a complaint filed by respondent Pawan Khera, a politician and chairman of media and publicity department of the Indian National Congress (INC).

The case pertains to a news report aired by Republic Bharat, a Hindi news channel under the Republic Media Network, regarding the demolition of a Hindu temple in Rajgarh, Rajasthan. The FIR was registered under Section 153A IPC, which penalizes acts that promote enmity between different religious, racial, or regional groups. An FIR was registered against Goswami on May 17, 2022, at Ambamata Police Station in Udaipur, alleging that the broadcast aimed to disrupt communal harmony.

Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for Goswami (petitioner), argued that the journalist had no direct involvement in the editorial decisions of Republic Bharat, nor did he participate in any telecast, debate, or broadcast related to the news report in question. It was contended that the FIR was politically motivated and Goswami has been falsely implicated. It was further submitted that the respondent’s actions were selective and biased as similar reports were aired by other media houses, but no action was taken against them.

Opposing the plea, Deputy Government Advocate Vikram Rajpurohit, appearing on behalf of the State, contended that the investigation was necessary and justified.

The court strongly remarked that the FIR appeared to be “an attempt to suppress journalistic freedom and subject the Petitioner to unwarranted legal proceedings.” It stressed that the selective targeting of Goswami, while similar news reports by other media outlets went unchallenged, raised concerns about the fairness of the investigation.

The court further observed that despite considerable time having elapsed since the FIR was registered, the investigation had not been concluded. This, according to the court, reinforced the impression that “the FIR is being used as an instrument of harassment rather than a legitimate legal proceeding.”

Terming the allegations “speculative and unsubstantiated,” the court observed: “Upon perusal of the contents of the FIR, it prima facie appears that the allegations against the Petitioner lack substantive material connecting him to the alleged offences. The FIR does not annex any transcripts, video clippings, or substantial evidence to demonstrate that the Petitioner, in his personal capacity, has made statements or engaged in acts that could invoke the provisions of Section 153A of the IPC.”

The court further clarified that criminal law cannot be weaponized to silence dissenting voices in the media and that “Mere reporting of an event of public interest, devoid of inflammatory intent or impact, cannot be construed as an offence under Section 153A.”

The court held that “The allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the commission of an offence under Section 153A of the IPC.”

Conclusively, finding merit in the submissions made by the petitioner, the court directed that no coercive action be taken against him until the final disposal of the petition.

The case has been listed for further hearing after eight weeks.

 

Cause Title: Arnab Goswami v State Of Rajasthan [S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3015/2022]