Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against News Anchor, Citing Lack of Malicious Intent Under New BNS Framework

GUWAHATI – In a significant ruling that delineates the boundaries between careless journalism and criminal intent, the Gauhati High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) against CNN-News18 anchor Akanksha Swarup. The court held that while her on-air remarks suggesting "human sacrifice" at the revered Maa Kamakhya Temple were "utterly careless," they did not meet the crucial threshold of "deliberate and malicious intention" required to constitute an offense under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The judgment, delivered by Justice Shamima Jahan in the case of Akanksha Swarup v/s State of Assam and Anr. , provides crucial judicial interpretation of speech-related offenses under the new penal code and reinforces the high bar of mens rea required for prosecution in cases concerning religious sentiments.

Case Background: A Controversial Broadcast and Swift Backlash

The controversy originated from a broadcast in June where Ms. Swarup was interviewing a relative of Raja Raghuvanshi, a businessman allegedly murdered in Meghalaya. During the discussion, the anchor posed a question linking the death to the Kamakhya Temple and the possibility of a "tantric killing" involving human sacrifice.

The FIR, filed by the Cyber Branch of the Guwahati Police, alleged that Ms. Swarup had made a declarative factual assertion that "Narbali (human sacrifice) is being practiced at Kamakhya," thereby hurting religious sentiments and creating a potential for public unrest. The police registered the case under Sections 196(2), 299, and 302 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which address promoting enmity, outraging religious feelings, and wounding religious beliefs, respectively.

In response to the backlash, CNN-News18 issued a public apology, describing the statement as a "complete error of judgment" and confirmed the removal of the contentious segment from all its digital platforms.

Arguments Before the High Court

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate K.N. Choudhury argued that Ms. Swarup was not stating her personal opinion but was merely posing a question based on suspicions voiced by the deceased's family. The defense emphasized that the anchor had used the word "they," attributing the suspicion of a "tantric killing" to the relatives she was interviewing.

However, the State contested this interpretation. The court, upon perusing the transcript, noted that a specific part of the statement was indeed attributable directly to the anchor. Justice Jahan observed: "In the said statement, it is reflected that the middle words 'where sacrifices or human sacrifices are offered' are stated are purportedly the words of the petitioner and as such, it cannot be said that these words are not hers."

Despite this finding, the core of the court's analysis shifted from the utterance of the words to the intention behind them.

Judicial Scrutiny of BNS Provisions: The Primacy of 'Deliberate Intent'

Justice Jahan conducted a meticulous, section-by-section analysis of the charges invoked in the FIR, ultimately concluding that the essential ingredients for each offense were absent.

1. Section 196(2) BNS (Promoting Enmity): The court swiftly dismissed this charge, noting that the provision applies to offenses committed "in any place of worship or in an assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremony." Since Ms. Swarup's comments were made during a television broadcast, the court found this section wholly inapplicable.

2. Section 299 BNS (Outraging Religious Feelings): This section penalizes acts committed with the "deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings" of any class of citizens. The court emphasized that both deliberation and malice are prerequisites. Justice Jahan concluded that these elements were not discernible from the facts. > "It cannot be said that by making that statement, she had intentions to insult or she has attempted to insult religion or religious beliefs of a particular class. It seems she had carelessly made that statement without any thoughtful consideration into it."

3. Section 302 BNS (Wounding Religious Beliefs): Similarly, this section requires a "deliberate intention of wounding the religious beliefs" of a person. The court examined the context of the interview—a discussion about a mysterious death—and found that the primary objective was not to attack a religious belief but to explore potential motives behind the crime, however clumsily. > "The main purpose of the interview was to speak about the death of the deceased person... and it was only to offer a view to the public by questioning the relative... As such, the deliberate intention which is required in both the Sections i.e., Section 299 and 302 cannot be said to be visible in the instant case."

Citing the landmark Supreme Court ruling in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal , which lays down the grounds for quashing an FIR, the court determined that the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not disclose a cognizable offense.

A Stern Caution: Judicial Admonishment Amidst Legal Relief

While granting legal relief to Ms. Swarup, the court did not mince words in its critique of her professional conduct. Justice Jahan issued a strong admonition, highlighting the profound responsibility that accompanies the freedom of the press.

"It will not be out of context to however mention herein that the said statements were utterly not required in the facts of the case and the same were totally careless on the part of the petitioner as well as the interviewee. Statements made in public forum should be well thought of. The petitioner as such is constrained not to make any such statement in near future before any forum much less public media at any point of time without any authority and validation."

This stern warning serves as a judicial reminder that while the law protects against prosecution for unintentional slights, it does not condone professional negligence or the dissemination of unverified, inflammatory claims.

Implications for Media Law and Free Speech Jurisprudence

The Gauhati High Court's judgment is a vital addition to the jurisprudence on media law, particularly in the context of the newly enacted BNS. It affirms that the threshold for criminalizing speech, especially that which touches upon religious sensitivities, remains high and is contingent on proving a guilty mind ( mens rea ).

For legal practitioners, this decision underscores the importance of scrutinizing the "intention" element when defending or prosecuting cases under Sections 299 and 302 of the BNS. It suggests that mere carelessness, recklessness, or poor judgment, while professionally reprehensible, may not be sufficient to attract criminal liability under these provisions.

The ruling strikes a delicate balance: it protects journalists from potentially vexatious litigation arising from on-air missteps while simultaneously holding them to a high standard of accountability. As the legal landscape continues to evolve with the BNS, this judgment will undoubtedly serve as a key precedent in navigating the complex interplay between freedom of expression, journalistic responsibility, and the protection of religious sentiments.