Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
Arnab Goswami and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
State of West Bengal and Anr. – Respondents
CRR 1187 of 2022 with CRAN 4 of 2022
Decided on 8.4.2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 153A/153-B/500/504/120B – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 41-A – Nasty and groundless statement made against Marwari community by a Panelist during a News Debate – Petitioner is a renowned T.V. Anchor – In present case there is no such ingredient to promote enmity or hatred between two groups as no two groups are involved – As statement was during a live show, it can be presumed that petitioners did not foresee such statement being made by a Panelist – There is nothing to show that there was any overact on part of petitioners which led to Panelist make such statement – There is nothing on record to prima facie substantiate allegations under Section 153A of IPC against petitioners – There has been nothing which attributes petitioners of breaking sovereignty and integrity of India – Controversial telecast was condemned by petitioners, on such sites where clip was already available – Alleged controversial statement was a personal opinion of a Panelist relating to certain incidents during Covid 19 Pandemic – There is no prima facie material to show that there was agreement between petitioners and (accused) Panelist in this case – Foundational facts essential for constituting substantive offences as alleged are not available from admitted allegations of prosecution – Criminal proceedings alongwith notices under Cr.P.C. quashed. (Paras 23, 24, 25, 27,
32, 38, 41, 48 and 51)
Result: Criminal Revision Petition allowed.
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 media and assuaged the concerns raised by a representative claiming to be from Bharatvarshiya Marwari Samaj.
5. It is further stated that Mr. Subhojit Ghosh was also proactively and immediately cut-off and interrupted by the petitioner no. 1 who was hosting the Broadcast the moment the comment was made in the broadcast. The inappropriate comment made by Mr. Ghosh was not in any way endorsed by the petitioner no. 1 or by the Republic Media Network. Mr. Ghosh was not put on air after the said comment was made by him. In fact, not only did the petitioner no. 1 reprimand Mr. Ghosh during the course of the live Broadcast but it is also part of the record, and well documented in the recordings which are available on YouTube, that various other panelists on the Broadcast had also called out the most disdainful statement made by Mr. Ghosh.
6. The relevant extract from the broadcast is as follows:-
“Subhojit Ghosh: Arnab I have a simple question, I have a simple question to the BJP person that the central team will investigate the, the uhh black marketing of the dishonest Marwaris in West Bengal?
Arnab Goswami: What? What do you mean by that? I mean what kind of a comment is that? What kind of a comment is that? One minute. One minute, One minute. Least expected comment from you but anyway, Nalin Kholi. [emphasis supplied]
Subhojit Ghosh: Yes, the Marwaris (unclear) black-marketing of masks at large.
Nalin Kohli: You are demeaning a whole community. Blackmarketing by Marwaris, oh my god you are making this a community fight now. Would you say the same thing about Bangladeshis who are coming into your state?
Subhojit Ghosh: The Marwaris are into black marketing in West Bengal.
Nalin Kohli: Would you say that they are eating away the jobs and eating away the resources of them?
Subhojit Ghosh: Yes
Nalin Kohli: Would you say the Rohingyas are being illegally settled in ? Would you say the same for people who are being hung on trees because they are supporters of BJP, they have been brutalized.
Arnab Goswami: I tell you. I tell you. No no, that’s not worth responding to. Kanchan Gupta, no no no. One minute one minute, we will not go down that way, Subhojit. I don’t think that is even worth responding to. That is not worth responding to. The question is. The question is. The question is... let’s bring some substance into the debate. [emphasis supplied]
Subhojit Ghosh: The every black marketing person is a Marwari.
Kanchan Gupta: I think it is a very bigoted hateful comment that was just made on live tv, person should either apologies or be taken off air but that is your editorial decision. Arnab, Swapan has made a point and that point needs explanation.”
7. It is further stated by the petitioners that apart from and beyond immediate reprima
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.
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
