Calcutta High Court Stays Defamation Proceedings Against 'Bongo TV' Journalist Over Interview With BJP Leader Who Criticised Ex-TMC MP

The FIR, lodged against Rahaman under Sections 500 and 505 (2) r/wSection 120B IPC, alleged that her news channel published and circulated misleading and false statements about former TMC MP Kunal Ghosh (respondent no 6).

It was alleged that Rahaman conducted an interview of one Sajal Ghosh, councillor and social media panellist of BJP, wherein he addressed the TMC leader (respondent no 6) as a thief, lowly person and illiterate and also mocked the press conferences.

Allegedly, in the interview, Ghosh also accused respondent no 6 to be the sole reason behind the suicide of many people and in the FIR, the Journalist was accused of airing this interview to create confusion amongst people and to defame respondent no 6.

A notice under Section 41-A was issued to the petitioner (Journalist Rojina Rahaman) by the police authorities in this regard, challenging the same, she moved the High Court.

Before the court, her counsel argued that being a journalist, the petitioner had only interviewed a political personality belonging to the opposition political party, wherein he had made some statements against respondent no.6, for which, no fault can be found with the petitioner.

It was further argued that the person who had spoken such words was not made an accused and hence, no prima facie case was made out against the petitioner.

It was strongly contended that no case alleging defamation under Section 500 of the Penal Code can be registered by way of an FIR and that no case under 505 (2) was made out for allegedly causing incitement or apprehension of creating enmity between two groups on the ground of religion race and like and that was, at best, a personal insinuation made to an individual by another.

On the other hand, the counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.6 opposes the prayer and submits that a prima facie case had been made out against the petition and hence, the HC ought not to interfere with the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

At the outset, the bench of Justice Jay Sengupta noted that applications for quashing a criminal proceeding by invoking powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are maintainable.

“In fact, in exercising such power a Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care a little more closely. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in frivolous or vexatious 3 proceedings, the Court is duty bound to look into the other attending circumstances and try to read in between the lines,” the Court noted.

Further, the Court also called it surprising that the person who allegedly made the insinuations was not made an accused in this case and instead only the anchor/journalist was hauled up.

The Court also noted that a case of defamation can only be instituted by way of lodging a petition of complaint before a learned Magistrate and not by way of an FIR as had been done in the instant case (relying on Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India 2016).

Regarding invocation of Section 505 (2) IPC, the Court noted that the alleged offence was not made out as there are no two different groups between which enmity could be created or promoted on the grounds of race or religion, etc. by making the alleged utterances.

In view of this, staying the proceedings in the FIR, the Court posted the matter for final hearing under the heading 'For Orders' on January 19, 2024.