Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against CNN-News18 Anchor Over Remarks Alleging Human Sacrifice at Kamakhya Temple Broadcast
Sanchayita lahkar
The Gauhati High Court, Single Bench of Justice Shamima Jahan quashed the FIR registered against CNN-News18 anchor Akanksha Swarup over remarks made during a televised interview in June referring to alleged human sacrifice practices at the Maa Kamakhya Temple. The statement, made while interviewing a relative of a man allegedly killed by his wife in Meghalaya, was alleged to be defamatory and capable of hurting religious sentiments. The Court found that the comments, though indiscreet, did not reflect any deliberate or malicious intent to outrage religious feelings or promote disharmony, and accordingly directed that the FIR be set aside.
The case arose from an FIR lodged on June 12, 2025, by a police officer of the Cyber Branch, Guwahati, alleging that a national news broadcast aired on CNN-News18 contained defamatory remarks concerning the Maa Kamakhya Temple. The broadcast featured an interview conducted by the petitioner, a television anchor, with the relative of one Raja Raghuvanshi, who was allegedly killed by his wife in Meghalaya earlier that year. During the telecast, the petitioner was stated to have asserted that human sacrifice was being practiced at the temple, which, according to the informant, was a false and unverified statement capable of disturbing public order and communal harmony. Based on the complaint, a case was registered under Sections 196(2), 299, and 302 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The petitioner, invoking the Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, sought quashing of the FIR, contending that the remarks were not made as her personal assertion but were a reference to statements made by the relatives of the deceased. It was further submitted that the news channel had subsequently issued a public apology, clarifying that the reference to human sacrifice at the Kamakhya Temple was erroneous and that all related content had been removed. The petitioner argued that the elements of deliberate or malicious intent, required to constitute offences under the cited provisions, were absent.
The State, through the Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the plea, arguing that the petitioner’s version was incomplete and that her statements were made without adequate verification, potentially offending religious sentiments. It was submitted that the co-interviewee’s statement indicated reliance on the petitioner’s comments, reflecting the latter’s carelessness. The State maintained that such conduct justified investigation under the invoked provisions, as the statements had the potential to disrupt public tranquility and communal harmony
The Court stated that the guiding principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) governed the exercise of inherent powers for quashing FIRs. It observed that "FIR can be quashed in cases where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused."
The Court examined the specific question posed by the petitioner during the broadcast: "Since they had gone to Kamakhya, where sacrifices or human sacrifices are offered, is your family suspicious that this could be a tantric killing?" Justice Jahan noted that "the deliberate intention of the petitioner is found missing by prima facie examination of the contents of the interview."
In evaluating Section 196(2) of the BNS, the Court stated that the provision "would not apply in the instant case inasmuch as, the comments made by the petitioner were not in any place of worship or in an assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremony." Regarding Section 299, the Court found that "the petitioner while making the said statements that human sacrifices are offered at Kamakhya cannot be said to be with the deliberate and malicious intention for outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizen of India."
The Court noted that "the deliberate intention of the petitioner is again found missing" and that her statements were made in the context of an interview seeking to explore the circumstances of a mysterious death. Justice Jahan further observed that "by reading the contents of the FIR as well as the question and answer in the interview, no prudent person can come to a conclusion that the questions put by the petitioner... were with the object of creating enmity between groups or any attempt to promote enmity or disharmony."
Nevertheless, the Court expressed disapproval of the anchor’s conduct, recording 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 publicforum 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.”
Justice Shamima Jahan concluded: "It is required that the contents of the FIR should make out a cognizable offence and if it does not make out a cognizable offence, the same may be quashed." After examining the applicability of Sections 196(2), 299, and 302, the Court found that none of these provisions were attracted to the petitioner’s conduct.
"In view of the discussions made above, this Court deems it fit that the FIR being registered as Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 04/2025 registered under Section 196(2)/299/302 BNS, 2023 lodged on 12.06.2025 before the Crime Branch Police Station, Commissionerate of Police, Guwahati, Assam is set aside and quashed qua the petitioner namely, Ms. Akansha Swarup for the ends of justice."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. S.P. Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. K.K. Das, Additional Public Prosecutor, State of Assam
Case Title: Akansha Swarup v. The State of Assam and Anr
Neutral Citation: 2025: GAU-AS:13788
Case Number: Crl.Pet./1187/2025
Bench: Justice Shamima Jahan
