The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur bench, in a significant interim order, directed that no coercive steps be taken against Republic TV’s Editor-in-Chief, Arnab Goswami, regarding an FIR filed against him under Section 153A IPC. The case pertains to a news report aired on Republic Bharat concerning the demolition of a temple. The court strongly emphasized that "mere reporting of an event of public interest, devoid of inflammatory intent or impact, cannot be considered an offence under Section 153A IPC."

Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) criminalizes acts that promote enmity between different religious, racial, linguistic, or regional groups. The provision applies when an individual, through spoken or written words, signs, or visual representation, attempts to create discord between communities or disturbs public harmony.

Justice Farjand Ali, while delivering the order, scrutinized the FIR and observed:

"Upon perusal of the contents of the FIR, it prima facie appears that the allegations against the Petitioner lack substantive material connecting him to the alleged offences. The FIR does not annex any transcripts, video clippings, or substantial evidence to demonstrate that the Petitioner, in his personal capacity, has made statements or engaged in acts that could invoke the provisions of Section 153A of the IPC. The absence of such material renders the allegations speculative and unsubstantiated."

Read Also:- Driving Criminal Law Forward with Data and Evidence: CJI Urges Young Lawyers to Embrace the Field

The court reviewed the legal requirements for invoking Section 153A and clarified that for an offence to be established under this provision, the accused must:

• Promote or attempt to promote enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different communities through words (spoken or written), signs, or visible representation.
• Commit acts that disrupt public harmony and create social unrest.

After examining the case details, the court concluded:

"A careful reading of the FIR and the submissions made before this Court indicate that the essential ingredients of Section 153A are not satisfied in the present case. The FIR neither specifies the exact statements nor provides any documentary or electronic evidence to show that the Petitioner has engaged in speech or conduct that incites enmity or disharmony. The lack of specificity in the allegations raises serious doubts about the bona fides of the prosecution's case."

Furthermore, the court reaffirmed that:

"For an offence under Section 153A to be constituted, the alleged words or acts must be clearly intentional, targeted, and capable of inciting disorder or violence. Mere reporting of an event of public interest, devoid of inflammatory intent or impact, cannot be construed as an offence under Section 153A."

Protection for Goswami & Implications for Journalistic Freedom

Considering the apparent lack of evidence, the high court observed that continued investigation into the matter suggested an "attempt to suppress journalistic freedom" and an effort to subject Goswami to "unwarranted legal proceedings."

Read Also:- Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief to Pune's Burger King in Trademark Dispute

Consequently, the court ruled:

"The continued investigation, despite the apparent lack of evidence, suggests an attempt to suppress journalistic freedom and subject the Petitioner to unwarranted legal proceedings. Accordingly, the present Stay Application is allowed. It is directed that till the disposal of the main petition, no coercive measures shall be taken against the Petitioner in connection with FIR No. 276/2022 of Police Station Ambamata, Udaipur."

Goswami’s counsel argued that he has been falsely implicated in the FIR, which was registered in 2022 under IPC Section 153A. The FIR stems from a Republic Bharat news report covering the demolition of a temple in Rajgarh, Rajasthan.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Rules High Court Cannot Direct ED to Register ECIR Without Independent Assessment

His legal team contended that:

• Goswami, as the Editor-in-Chief of Republic Media Network, is not directly involved in the editorial decision-making of Republic Bharat.
• He did not participate in the telecast, debate, or broadcast of the news segment in question.
• The FIR represents an abuse of legal procedures and appears to be motivated by extraneous factors and political vendetta.
• Similar reports on the incident were aired by other media outlets, yet only Goswami has been singled out for legal action, raising concerns about the neutrality of the investigation.

The defense further asserted:

"The registration of the FIR is aimed at intimidating and silencing independent journalism, which is a fundamental pillar of democracy."

Case Title: Arnab Goswami v/s State of Rajasthan and Another