Lucknow Court Orders Registration of Case Against Aaj Tak Anchor Anjana Om Kashyap

A Lucknow court has ordered the registration of a complaint case against television journalist Anjana Om Kashyap over her Independence Day broadcast on Aaj Tak. The order was passed on a complaint filed by former IPS officer Amitabh Thakur, who contended that the programme carried divisive and factually distorted content capable of provoking communal disharmony.

After the Lucknow police refused to register an FIR, Thakur approached the court of the Judicial Magistrate (JM) III in Lucknow, which directed that the complaint be registered.

The order came after arguments were raised on whether the Gomtinagar court had territorial jurisdiction to hear the case, given that the original broadcast was made outside Lucknow. Relying on provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), Than argued that the programme was available online and had been viewed in Lucknow, making it a “continuing offence” falling within the local court’s jurisdiction.

The broadcast in question was part of Aaj Tak’s Black and White series, aired on August 14 with the theme “Bharat Vibhajan ka Maqsad Poora Kyon Nahi Hua?” (Why was the purpose of Partition not fulfilled?). Thakur alleged that by questioning why all Muslims did not migrate to Pakistan at the time of Partition, the programme sought to create hostility against a particular community.

Citing excerpts from the episode, the complaint noted Kashyap’s statement that “only 96 lakh Muslims went to Pakistan out of nearly four crore, while 83 lakh Hindus came to India.” It further alleged inconsistencies in the data presented within the same programme, with numbers shifting between “96 lakh Muslims” and “72 lakh Muslims” migrating, while Hindu figures were presented differently at two points. According to Thakur, this amounted to “deliberate distortion” to suit a communal narrative.

The complaint invoked Sections 196 (promoting enmity between groups), 197 (assertions prejudicial to national integration), and 353(2) (statements conducing to public mischief) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), contending that the broadcast was “mischievous, venomous and divisive.” It argued that the programme risked “raking up a painful historical wound” in a way that could “induce fissures and even violence” between Hindus and Muslims.

To establish jurisdiction, Thakur drew parallels with defamation cases previously entertained by courts away from the site of original speech. Examples cited included multiple proceedings against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi: a case in Lucknow linked to remarks made during his Bharat Jodo Yatra in Arunachal Pradesh; one in Sultanpur over comments made in Bengaluru; and another in Pune arising from a speech delivered in London. In each, local courts assumed jurisdiction on grounds that the alleged offence continued wherever the remarks were published or accessed.

“The offence is not limited to the place of original broadcast,” Thakur argued. “It continues each time the content is relayed or viewed, including in Gomtinagar, Lucknow, where Thakur watched it. Thus, Gomtinagar becomes a place of incidence", he contended.

The complaint further contended that the programme’s framing, asking “why the purpose of Partition was not fulfilled,” implicitly questioned the legitimacy of Muslims continuing to live in India. This, it alleged, amounted to “an incitement to re-examine Partition as though a historical correction was overdue,” thereby encouraging intolerance and hostility.

According to the complaint, the broadcast “goes against the spirit of national integration” upheld since Independence. It argued that India’s leaders had consciously declared the country a secular, multi-religious nation, in contrast with Pakistan’s founding as a Muslim homeland. Any suggestion that Muslims should have left India, the complaint said, was “prima facie factually incorrect, mischievous, and objectionable".

Court, after hearing arguments on territorial maintainability, accepted the plea that the offence could be tried in Lucknow and ordered the registration of the complaint. It has directed that proceedings be initiated under relevant provisions of the BNS. Thakur has been directed to get his Statements recorded on September 30, 2025.

Case Title: Amitabh Thakur vs Anjana Om Kashyap

Order Date: September 2, 2025

Judge: Judicial Magistrate- III, Lucknow