Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
Arnab Goswami – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
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 comm
T.V. Anchor cannot be held liable to any offensive comments spontaneously made by a Panelist during a News Debate.
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.
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 ....
The judgment established that to prove an offence under Section 153A IPC, there must be evidence of promoting enmity between different groups, and mere statements or social media posts may not be suf....
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
Listen Article