'Omnibus Statement' To Elicit Different Views Not Blasphemous: Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against News Anchor Over Remarks On Prophet

The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed an FIR registered against Suvarna News anchor Ajit Hanumakkanavar for allegedly making disrespectful remarks about Prophet Mohammad during a televised debate. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 288]The single judge bench of Justice Ravi V Hosmani, while allowing the petition, observed that another complaint was registered against petitioner and Manager of Suvarna News 24/7 News Channel, in an FIR (Crime no.292/2018) lodged for offences under Sections 153A and 505(2) IPC which had been quashed. The court observed that the main grounds of challenge were in respect of very same incident, wherein another FIR registered on similar allegations was quashed as the registration of multiple complaints was illegal and complaint "did not disclose essential ingredients for offences alleged". It referred to its order quashing the earlier FIR wherein the court had said: "when material on record are perused or examined, as noticed hereinabove, questions posed by the petitioner during the course of panel discussion held on 27.12.2018, it cannot be held as the provisions of Section 153-A or 505(2) of IPC having been attracted and even if they are uncontroverted, allegations made in the complaint if taken at its face value and accepted in its entirety, it would not constitute the alleged offences or make out a case against the accused justifying any sort of investigation by a police officer and as such this Court is of the considered view that proceeding with the investigation in the instant case would be abuse of process of law and it would not be out of place to notice at this juncture itself that with a view to curtail the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, such complaint has been filed". In the present case, the court observed that it had been held in the previous FIR that there was absence of mens rea to incite a particular community, caste or religion [while quashing a previous crime on the same incident]. "It is observed that an omnibus statement expressing two different views to enable panelists to express their views would not be blasphemous. It is also observed that there is no reference to any particular community," the court said. The Court held that the statements did not constitute offences under Sections 153A, 295A, and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as they lacked the requisite mens rea to incite communal disharmony or outrage religious feelingsThe court opined that multiple complaints filed in respect of the same incident amounted to an abuse of process. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal & Anr. (2010) 5 SCC 600, where the Apex Court had quashed numerous complaints filed against the petitioner in respect of the same incident.“…Though with said observations, it was held [previously] registration of FIR for offences punishable under Sections 153A and 505 (2) of IPC was illegal, said observations/findings would inure to petitioner even insofar as offence under Section 295 A of IPC, where element of mens rea is doubly qualified in phrase 'deliberate and malicious intention of outraging religious feelings'. Consequently, registration of impugned FIR would be illegal warranting interference….”, the court held further.To recap, one Mr Isaq Ahamad preferred a police complaint on December 31, 2018, alleging that the anchor-petitioner, made provocative statements about the life of Prophet Mohammad during a program telecast on Suvarna News 24/7 Channel on December 27, 2018. Such statements alleged were made during a debate on TV about allegedly offensive statements made by Prof. Bhagwan in his book 'Why Ram Mandir is not needed'.The complainant alleged in the police complaint that such statements of the anchor had hurt his religious sentiments and those of the Muslim community. Subsequently, a FIR was registered at Tunga Nagar Police Station, Shivamogga for offences under Sections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups), 295A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings), 505(2) (statements creating public mischief), and Section 34 (common intention) of the IPC.The petitioner argued that the statements made by the anchor during the program were in the nature of questions posed to panelists to elicit their views, and he himself did not say anything that amounts to incitement. Further, it was stated that there was no mens rea present to incite a particular community against another.After hearing both sides, the Court noted that the petitioner had only made statements to the effect that 'No one is above being questioned' or 'everyone can be questioned' and 'whom you choose to question'. There was no specific reference to any particular religion so as to incite hatred, the court opined.The Court extensively quoted from its earlier judgment where it had emphasized on freedom of speech and expression and had said:“…Freedom of speech and expression as provided under Article 19(1)(a)...

'Omnibus Statement' To Elicit Different Views Not Blasphemous: Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against News Anchor Over Remarks On Prophet

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

'Omnibus Statement' To Elicit Different Views Not Blasphemous: Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against News Anchor Over Remarks On Prophet

Sebin James

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers