Introduction:

In the case titled Mr. Arnab Goswami & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. (CRR 1187 of 2022), The Calcutta High Court was tasked with adjudicating on whether criminal proceedings initiated against Republic TV and its Editor-in-Chief, Arnab Goswami, could be sustained in light of allegedly hateful remarks made by a panelist during a live broadcast. The matter arose when Subhojit Ghosh, appearing as a guest panelist on a Republic TV show, made controversial statements about the Marwari community, suggesting their involvement in black marketing, including the illicit trade of masks. These remarks led to the registration of criminal proceedings, with accusations that such statements could provoke communal tensions and violate legal provisions under various sections related to incitement and hate speech. However, the petitioners contended that the remarks were not endorsed by Republic TV or Arnab Goswami, and that the guest panelist was immediately rebuked on air. They further submitted that after the broadcast, following a representation by the Bharatvarshiya Marwari Samaj, Republic TV issued a public statement dissociating itself from the panelist’s comments.

Arguments:

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioners emphasized that the remarks did not have any sanction from the channel or its editorial leadership. They argued that the remarks were not pre-approved or scripted, and were made extemporaneously by a panelist who did not reflect the channel’s views. Moreover, there was no further engagement or discussion on the inflammatory remarks during the broadcast, and the channel did not give the panelist further opportunity to elaborate. The petitioners also argued that criminal liability cannot be fastened on a media house or its editor for a spontaneous remark made by a third party on a live telecast, especially when corrective action was promptly taken.

On the other hand, the complainant maintained that the panelist’s statements were deeply offensive, hurtful to the Marwari community, and capable of inciting group tensions. It was submitted that even though the remarks were made by a guest, it was the responsibility of the media platform to ensure such statements were not aired. According to the complainant, the airing of such unverified and hateful claims during a news debate amounted to negligence, if not direct complicity. They also asserted that the potential for such statements to cause harm was significant, especially given the wide reach of Republic TV.

Judgement:

Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul), presiding over the matter, closely examined the content of the broadcast, the context of the panelist’s remarks, and the channel’s immediate reaction. The Court acknowledged that the statement in question was indeed made during a live telecast, but stressed that the context and response were vital in determining culpability. It was observed that Arnab Goswami and other participants on the panel had not endorsed the remarks and had rebuked them in real-time. The Court underscored the legal position that for an offense under Sections related to hate speech or incitement, there must be some form of intentionality or endorsement from the accused parties. The Court stated, “The statement made in this case was a personal opinion/view during a live telecast. It was made by a panelist who did not prima facie have the approval of the petitioners to make such a statement. Further, it noted that the essential legal element of promoting enmity between two groups was missing in this case. “In the present case, there is no such ingredient as no two groups are involved. So the question of promoting enmity does not arise,” the Court held. Importantly, the Court also considered the post-broadcast conduct of Republic TV, particularly the public statement issued to distance itself from the panelist’s comments. It was that such proactive conduct suggested that the channel did not support or propagate the views expressed by the panelist. The judge pointed out that responsibility under criminal law must be clearly attributed and cannot be presumed merely on account of ownership or editorial roles.

In conclusion, the Calcutta High Court found that there was no prima facie material to sustain the charges against Republic TV or Arnab Goswami under the alleged provisions. It ruled that while the remarks may have been inappropriate, they did not rise to the level of criminal liability for the petitioners who neither authorized nor supported them. The Court accordingly quashed the criminal proceedings, emphasizing that liability in such matters must be determined cautiously, especially when it pertains to live television, editorial independence, and freedom of expression. The judgment not only offered relief to Republic TV and its editor but also reinforced the need for a balanced approach in assessing legal culpability in cases involving dynamic media content.