The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a journalist under Section 196(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for allegedly promoting enmity between groups through a news report concerning a violent incident during a Ganesh Visarjan procession. The Court held that merely reporting an incident involving violence does not, by itself, constitute an offence under the provision.
Justice Himanshu Joshi was hearing a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking quashing of an FIR registered on September 8, 2025, at Silwani Police Station in Raisen district.
According to the prosecution, the journalist had broadcast a report on September 6, 2025, concerning an incident during the Ganesh Visarjan procession. The complaint alleged that the manner of reporting created fear and confusion among members of the Hindu community and had the potential to provoke communal discord.
The journalist contended that his report merely covered a violent incident during the procession in which two persons sustained injuries. He also pointed out that a separate FIR had already been registered in connection with an alleged assault during the same procession. The State opposed the petition, arguing that the effect and context of the publication in a sensitive communal setting required investigation.
The Court observed that Section 196(1) of the BNS, which substantially corresponds to Section 153A of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code, penalises acts promoting or attempting to promote disharmony, enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups on specified grounds. However, the mere reporting of a violent incident does not, by itself, attract the provision. The nature and content of the publication, its context and the requisite connection with the promotion of enmity between groups are material considerations.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya, AIR 2021 SC 1632, the High Court reiterated that mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offence and that promotion of enmity or ill-will between at least two groups or communities is necessary. Mere incitement of the feelings of one community, without reference to another community or group, would not by itself attract the provision.
On examining the allegations, the Court found that the FIR did not identify any specific words, expressions or material in the journalist’s report that promoted or attempted to promote enmity between two communities on any of the grounds contemplated under Section 196(1) of the BNS. The allegations that the report created fear and confusion and had the potential to provoke communal discord were found to be general in nature.
The Court further observed that the possibility of public outrage or communal tension, by itself, cannot justify continuation of criminal proceedings in the absence of specific allegations disclosing the essential ingredients of the offence.
It also clarified that a journalist’s professional status does not confer immunity from prosecution where the ingredients of an offence are otherwise made out. At the same time, freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) cannot be curtailed merely because a report concerns a sensitive public incident. Any restriction on such expression must be justified in law.
Holding that the material on record did not disclose a prima facie case under Section 196(1) of the BNS, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR, along with all consequential proceedings against the journalist.
