Back
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
Arnab Goswami – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.—The present criminal revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the impugned criminal proceeding being Phoolbagan P.S. Case No. 99/2020 dated 22nd April, 2020 under Section 153A/153- B/500/504/120B of the Indian Penal Code and notices dated 19th November, 2021 and 01 April, 2022, issued to the petitioner no. 1 under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. The petitioners’ case in short is that the petitioner no. 1 is the Editorin- Chief of the Republic Media Network. It owns and operates the Republic Media Network. The Network owns and operates news channels in English (Republic TV), Hindi (R. Bharat) and Bangla (R. Bangla) genres. The petitioner no. 2, media network is a news media organization.
3. The FIR pertains to the news debate aired on Republic TV on 21st April, 2020 at about 9 P.M. in the show called “The Debate” (“Broadcast”) and a comment made by a panelist (Mr. Subhojit Ghosh) during the Broadcast. The Broadcast was aired live on Republic TV.
4. The petitioner no. 1 and Republic TV had condemned the comment made by Mr. Subhojit Ghosh in the Broadcast and had promptly issued a wide-reaching clarification on social
T.V. Anchor cannot be held liable to any offensive comments spontaneously made by a Panelist during a News Debate.
The court emphasized the need to protect freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and determined the FIR lacked basis for criminal charges under Sections 353(2) and 505(2).
The court established that mere expressions of political support do not constitute an offence under Section 153A IPC unless they promote enmity between distinct groups.
The FIR lacks necessary ingredients for offences under Section 196(1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, justifying its quashing due to vagueness.
FIR quashed - Through Facebook ID, posted objectionable material - Religious sentiments - Petitioner has shared post of other person, even, contents of FIR does not, prima facie, establish alleged of....
Right to express one’s views is a protected and cherished right in our democracy. Merely because the point of view of Petitioner is extreme or harsh will not make it a hate speech as it is only expre....
Intent to humiliate must be established for offences under the Atrocities Act; mere airing of content without direct involvement does not constitute an offence.
Every citizen has right to offer criticism for every decision of State – He has right to say he is unhappy with any decision of State – Every citizen of India has a right to be critical of action of ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
