Introduction:
The Gauhati High Court, in a significant ruling protecting journalistic expression while cautioning against careless remarks on religious matters, has quashed an FIR filed against CNN-News18 anchor Akanksha Swarup for allegedly defamatory and provocative statements made during a televised broadcast concerning the revered Maa Kamakhya Temple in Guwahati. The case arose from a June news segment in which Swarup, while interviewing a relative of the late Raja Raghuvanshi—allegedly killed by his wife in Meghalaya—referred to possible “human sacrifice” practices at the Kamakhya Temple. This statement sparked widespread outrage and led to the registration of an FIR under Sections 196(2), 299, and 302 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. Swarup moved the High Court seeking to quash the FIR, contending that her statement was misinterpreted and lacked any malicious intent to insult religious sentiments.
Arguments by the Petitioner:
Counsel for the petitioner, appearing on behalf of journalist Akanksha Swarup, argued that the broadcast in question did not contain any deliberate or malicious intention to insult or defame religious beliefs. The statement referring to “human sacrifice” at Kamakhya was not a declarative factual assertion but rather a question posed in the context of an interview based on statements made by relatives of the deceased. The counsel clarified that the petitioner was merely facilitating a dialogue based on the suspicions raised by the deceased’s family members, who themselves mentioned the possibility of a tantric killing.
The counsel emphasized that the petitioner used the pronoun “they,” clearly attributing the claim to the relatives rather than asserting it herself. Furthermore, it was submitted that the news channel promptly issued a public apology, acknowledging that the reference to “human sacrifice” at Kamakhya Temple was made in error and had been removed from all its platforms. The petitioner’s side contended that this immediate corrective action reflected the absence of malice or intent to outrage religious sentiments. They also highlighted that the purpose of the interview was to discuss the circumstances of a mysterious death and not to comment on or criticize any religious practices.
Additionally, the petitioner argued that the invocation of BNS Sections 196(2), 299, and 302 was legally untenable. Section 196(2), which criminalizes offensive conduct in places of worship, was inapplicable since the statements were made during a studio broadcast, not within any temple premises or religious congregation. As for Sections 299 and 302—both of which deal with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings—the petitioner’s counsel stressed that there was no element of intent or deliberation. The statements, though careless, were at most an inadvertent journalistic lapse, not a criminal act. The petitioner sought the quashing of the FIR on the grounds that it amounted to harassment and an attempt to criminalize journalistic expression without the requisite mens rea.
Arguments by the Respondents:
On the other side, the State of Assam and the complainant opposed the petition, asserting that the journalist’s remarks were not only factually incorrect but also offensive to the religious sentiments of devotees of the Kamakhya Temple, a sacred site deeply revered in Hinduism. The prosecution contended that the statement—“human sacrifice is being practiced at Kamakhya”—was made as a categorical assertion during a national broadcast and had no factual basis. They argued that the broadcast’s wide reach and influence exacerbated the harm caused, as it linked a prominent temple with illegal and abhorrent acts, thereby defaming the religious institution and hurting the sentiments of the devotees.
The respondents further argued that even if the statement was made carelessly, it had the potential to incite religious discord or misconceptions about Hindu practices, thus falling within the purview of Section 299 of the BNS, which penalizes deliberate or malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings. They also pointed to the petitioner’s professional responsibility as a journalist to exercise caution when commenting on sensitive religious matters. The respondents argued that the apology issued later did not absolve the petitioner of criminal liability, as the harm had already been done through the broadcast. They maintained that the FIR was validly registered and that the issue should proceed to trial, allowing a full factual inquiry into the journalist’s intent and the broadcast’s impact.
Court’s Observations and Reasoning:
Justice Shamima Jahan of the Gauhati High Court, after hearing the submissions of both sides and perusing the FIR, the transcript of the broadcast, and the petitioner’s statement, undertook a detailed analysis of whether the essential ingredients of the offences alleged were satisfied. The Court began by examining Section 196(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which pertains to statements or acts performed within a place of worship or during a religious ceremony that could offend religious sentiments. The Court observed that the broadcast was conducted in a television studio and not in any place of worship or during a religious event. Consequently, Section 196(2) could not apply to the facts of the case.
Turning to Sections 299 and 302, which deal respectively with deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings and deliberate intent to wound religious beliefs, the Court noted that these provisions require proof of “deliberate intention” and “malicious intent.” The Court observed that the petitioner’s remarks, though inappropriate, were made in the context of a journalistic interview and were not accompanied by any evidence of intention to insult or denigrate the religion or its followers. The Court emphasized that intent plays a crucial role in determining liability under these sections, and the absence of deliberate malice negates criminal culpability.
Justice Jahan observed that while the petitioner’s phrasing—“since they had gone to Kamakhya, where sacrifices or human sacrifices are offered”—appeared to be her own words rather than a direct quote, the larger context of the interview made it clear that the focus was on investigating the possible reasons behind a mysterious death. The Court acknowledged that the words used were careless and unfortunate but fell short of constituting a criminal act. The remarks were seen as speculative questions rather than definitive statements of fact.
The Court also took into account the petitioner’s immediate retraction and the apology issued by the news channel, describing these as mitigating factors that demonstrated the absence of mala fide intent. Justice Jahan cautioned that while journalists have the right to question and investigate, they must also exercise restraint and sensitivity when discussing subjects intertwined with religious beliefs. The Court emphasized that freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution must be balanced with the duty not to spread misinformation or hurt sentiments without basis.
Addressing the potential impact of the statement, the Court noted that although the comments could have caused temporary discomfort or anger among devotees, there was no evidence to suggest that the statement led to public unrest or enmity between communities. Therefore, the element of promoting enmity or disharmony, implicit in the offences alleged, was missing.
The judgment also carried a broader observation on journalistic ethics. The Court stated that media professionals hold a position of significant influence and must exercise caution when making statements on air, especially concerning faith and culture. Justice Jahan remarked that “statements made in public forums should be well thought out,” underscoring that while the Court was quashing the FIR, it did not endorse the petitioner’s lack of diligence. The Court advised the petitioner to avoid making any such statements in the future without factual verification or official validation.
Court’s Judgment:
After analyzing all aspects of the case, the Gauhati High Court concluded that the FIR filed against the journalist did not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. The Court found that the elements of deliberate and malicious intent required under Sections 299 and 302 of the BNS were absent. Similarly, Section 196(2) was deemed inapplicable as the alleged act did not occur in a place of worship or during a religious ceremony.
The Court, therefore, quashed the FIR against Akanksha Swarup, observing that her statement, though “utterly not required” and “careless,” did not amount to a criminal offence. Justice Jahan emphasized that while journalists must be cautious, criminal law cannot be invoked merely to punish carelessness or lack of prudence. She concluded that the petitioner’s statement was made without thoughtful consideration but not with deliberate intent to insult or wound religious beliefs.
The judgment stands as an important reaffirmation of the principle that criminal prosecution for speech should be reserved for cases involving clear and deliberate malice. The Court cautioned against the growing tendency to criminalize journalistic expression for unintentional lapses, reiterating that a balance must be maintained between protecting religious sentiments and upholding freedom of expression.
In conclusion, while the High Court spared the petitioner from criminal prosecution, it strongly reminded journalists of their ethical duty to ensure factual accuracy and cultural sensitivity. The ruling reflects a nuanced understanding of the intersection between free speech, religion, and media responsibility in contemporary India.