The Calcutta High Court has recently intervened in a case involving a defamation FIR against journalist Rojina Rahaman of ‘Bongo TV’, staying the proceedings initiated against her. This decision comes in the backdrop of an interview conducted by Rahaman with Sajal Ghosh, a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) councillor and social media panelist, who made critical remarks about a former Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP, Kunal Ghosh.
Also read-Calcutta High Court Judge Queries CID’s Summons In Spousal Case (lawchakra.in)
The FIR, lodged under Sections 500 and 505 (2) read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), accused Rahaman’s news channel of publishing and circulating misleading and false statements about the former TMC MP. In the interview, Sajal Ghosh referred to the TMC leader as a thief, a lowly person, and illiterate, and also accused him of being the sole reason behind the suicide of many people. The journalist was subsequently accused of airing this interview to create confusion among people and to defame the TMC leader.
Rojina Rahaman, in response to a notice under Section 41–A issued by the police, approached the High Court, challenging the FIR. Her counsel argued that as a journalist, Rahaman had merely interviewed a political personality from the opposition party, and no fault could be attributed to her for the statements made by the interviewee. It was further contended that the person who made the remarks was not made an accused, thus no prima facie case was established against Rahaman.
The counsel for Rahaman strongly argued that a defamation case under Section 500 of the IPC cannot be registered via an FIR and that no case under Section 505 (2) was made out for allegedly causing incitement or apprehension of creating enmity between two groups on the grounds of religion, race, or the like. This was, at best, a personal insinuation made by one individual against another.
Also read-Delhi High Court Rules Solicitor General’s Legal Advice To Government Exempt From RTI Disclosure (lawchakra.in)
On the other hand, the counsel representing the respondent (former TMC MP) opposed the plea, asserting that a prima facie case had been made out against the petition, and hence, the High Court should not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Jay Sengupta, presiding over the case, noted that applications for quashing a criminal proceeding under Article 226 are maintainable. The Court emphasized the duty to scrutinize the FIR more closely, especially in frivolous or vexatious proceedings. The Court found it surprising that the person who made the insinuations was not made an accused, and only the journalist was targeted.
The Court also observed that a defamation case should be instituted by lodging a petition of complaint before a learned Magistrate, not by way of an FIR, as was done in this case, relying on the precedent set in Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India (2016). Regarding the invocation of Section 505 (2) IPC, the Court noted that the alleged offense was not made out as there were no two different groups between which enmity could be created or promoted on the grounds of race or religion by making the alleged utterances.
In light of these observations, the Calcutta High Court stayed the proceedings in the FIR and scheduled the matter for final hearing on January 19, 2024. This decision underscores the importance of judicial scrutiny in cases involving freedom of the press and the responsibilities of journalists in political discourse.
Also read-Gujarat High Court Affirms Dismissal Of Judge For Unauthorized Leave And Misconduct (lawchakra.in)
