The Court Wants to Know, What the Offence Is: Karnataka HC Stays Probe Against Arnab Goswami

Bengaluru, December 17, 2024 — The Karnataka High Court, in a sharp critique of the police’s actions, questioned the grounds for invoking legal provisions against Republic TV Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami. Granting an interim stay on investigations into a case registered against him, the Court remarked, “The Court wants to know, what the offence is?”

The case stems from a March 2024 broadcast by Republic TV Kannada, which alleged that an ambulance in Bengaluru was delayed due to zero-traffic measures imposed for Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s convoy. The broadcast, later found to be inaccurate, was swiftly taken down, but a complaint by Congress member Ravindra MV led to the registration of a case under Section 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a provision dealing with statements that promote enmity or hatred between groups.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, presiding over the matter, expressed strong reservations about the applicability of the charge. “What has Arnab Goswami done? Using provisions of the IPC only because they exist? How has this created enmity between religious groups?” the judge asked during the hearing, emphasizing the need for restraint in filing such cases.

The Court deemed the complaint as an instance of “reckless registration of crime.” It noted that the offending news segment was on air for only a few minutes and was promptly deleted once inaccuracies were identified.

Advocate Aruna Shyam, representing Goswami, argued that the complaint was an overreach, designed to stifle journalistic freedom. She pointed out that the complainant had gone so far as to specify which sections of the IPC should be invoked, calling this a sign of undue enthusiasm. “The news report was deleted within 24 hours, yet an FIR was registered under Section 505(2). The provision is wholly inapplicable here,” Shyam contended.

The Court echoed these concerns, stating that the case lacked even the “remotest” justification for invoking Section 505(2). Justice Nagaprasanna warned that allowing such complaints would constitute an abuse of the legal process.

“A lot of issues have come to light because of this man [Goswami]. It might have been good for some and bad for others, but where is the case of inciting hatred?” the judge questioned, adding that unfounded allegations against media figures could set a dangerous precedent.

The High Court has granted interim relief to Goswami, staying all investigations until January 16, 2025, when his plea to quash the FIR will be heard.