‘Dragged in Only Because He Is Arnab Goswami’: Karnataka HC Slams FIR Over Alleged False News

Post By 24law
February 26, 2025

Pranav B Prem

In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has quashed the First Information Report (FIR) registered against Republic Media Network’s Editor-in-Chief, Arnab Goswami. The court found no legal basis for the case and observed that proceeding with the investigation would amount to an abuse of the legal process.

High Court’s Observation

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while delivering the judgment, expressed serious concerns over the registration of the FIR and observed: “At the time of hearing of the petition, to a pointed query, that ‘the Court wants to know what offence the petitioner has committed’, there is no reply. Therefore, he has done nothing, ostensibly, so as the petitioner has not committed any offence as observed hereinabove, the petitioner is dragged in only because he is Arnab Goswami.” The court noted that merely because Goswami is a well-known media personality, he has been unnecessarily implicated in the case.

Background of the Case

The case originated from a complaint filed by Ravindra M.V., a member of the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee, against Arnab Goswami and the executive editor of Republic Kannada. The complaint alleged that Republic Kannada aired a false news report claiming that an ambulance was held up in Bengaluru due to the Chief Minister’s convoy, an assertion disputed by the authorities. Based on this complaint, an FIR was registered under Section 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which penalizes statements promoting enmity, hatred, or ill-will between communities.

Court’s Legal Analysis

1. Section 505(2) IPC Not Attracted

The High Court carefully analyzed the applicability of Section 505(2) IPC and found that the allegations did not meet the essential ingredients of the provision. The judgment noted: “Section 505(2) of the IPC deals with statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes. What is aired in the case at hand is an alleged false report, that the convoy of the Chief Minister had to pass and an ambulance has to wait. Even if it is construed to be true, it is un-understandable as to how the ingredients of Section 505(2) are met even to its remotest sense.” The court emphasized that even if the news report was false, it did not amount to an offense under Section 505(2) IPC.

2. Arnab Goswami Not Responsible for Republic Kannada’s Editorial Decisions

The court further observed that Goswami, as a media house director, was not responsible for the daily editorial decisions of Republic Kannada. Justice Nagaprasanna held: “He being the Editor-in-Chief or Executive Director of Republic Media Network, he has neither made a statement nor aired anything to promote hatred between the classes. It is the averment that he is not in charge of day-to-day affairs or minute-to-minute details of what is aired on R.Kannada.” The judgment criticized the inclusion of Goswami’s name in the FIR, stating that the complaint appeared to be driven by extraneous considerations rather than legal merit.

3. Complaint Lacks Substance and Is Malicious in Nature

The High Court also pointed out the baseless nature of the complaint and the reckless registration of the FIR. The court stated: “It becomes a classic illustration of dragging the petitioner only to settle other scores. Recklessness pervades throughout the registration of the complaint.” Relying on Supreme Court precedents, including Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997) and Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra (2007), the High Court reaffirmed that mere publication of allegedly false news does not automatically constitute a criminal offense unless it incites hatred between groups.

Final Verdict

Concluding its judgment, the Karnataka High Court ruled in favor of Goswami and quashed the FIR, stating: “In the light of the preceding analysis and also the judgments of the Apex Court as afore-quoted, permitting investigation even in the case at hand would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.” Accordingly, the court issued the following order: “The impugned crime in Crime No.35/2024, pending before the 6th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, qua the petitioner, stands obliterated.”