In a case that sparked intense debate over freedom of speech and journalistic responsibility, the Gauhati High Court on Wednesday quashed the FIR lodged against CNN-News18 anchor Akansha Swarup for her on-air remarks suggesting “human sacrifice” at the Maa Kamakhya Temple. Justice Shamima Jahan held that while the comment was “utterly careless and unnecessary”, it did not show deliberate intent to insult religious beliefs or disturb public harmony.
Background
The controversy began after an interview aired on June 12, 2025, in which Swarup referred to possible “human sacrifices” linked to a murder case near Kamakhya Temple. The remark, made during a live discussion with the cousin of the deceased, prompted a police officer from the Cyber Branch to file an FIR under Sections 196(2), 299, and 302 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which replaced the Indian Penal Code.
The FIR alleged that Swarup’s statements were defamatory and “hurt the religious sentiments of devotees,” leading to potential disturbance of public peace in Assam. The news channel later issued a public apology in The Assam Tribune, admitting the statement was “an error of judgment” and deleted the segment from all digital platforms.
Court’s Observations
Senior Advocate K.N. Choudhury, appearing for Swarup, argued that the anchor merely quoted relatives of the deceased and did not personally claim human sacrifice was practiced at the temple. The bench, however, found that “the words ‘where human sacrifices are offered’ were indeed uttered by the petitioner herself.”
Even so, Justice Jahan noted that intention was crucial.
“It cannot be said that the petitioner, with deliberate and malicious intention, tried to insult or outrage religious feelings,” the bench observed.
The court emphasized that Swarup’s remark appeared “careless and without thoughtful consideration” rather than deliberately provocative. The judge cited Supreme Court rulings including State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal to underline that FIRs can be quashed if allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence.
Referring to Section 299 (outraging religious feelings) and Section 302 (wounding religious beliefs) of the BNS, the court held that neither provision was applicable since “deliberate intent” was absent. The bench also ruled that Section 196(2), relating to offences at religious places, could not apply because the remark was made on television, not at a place of worship.
At the same time, Justice Jahan issued a cautionary note:
“Statements made in public forums should be well thought of. The petitioner is constrained not to make such statements in future without authority or validation.”
Decision
Concluding that the FIR lacked any legal basis, the court quashed the case (Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 04/2025) filed against Akansha Swarup. The judgment ends with a strong reminder about journalistic accountability: even in the age of live television, words carry weight, and carelessness can have consequences.
Case Title: Akansha Swarup vs The State of Assam & Anr
Case No.: Crl. Pet./1187/2025
Petitioner: Akansha Swarup - Anchor, CNN-News18
Respondents:
- State of Assam (represented by Public Prosecutor)
- Inspector Chandan Das - Cyber Police Station, Guwahati
Date of Order: 2025
