Karnataka High Court quashes FIR against Amit Malviya, Arnab Goswami, closing a criminal case that began in May 2025 with a Youth Congress legal cell complaint over a television programme’s claim that the Congress has an international office in Turkey; the detailed order is awaited.
Bengaluru: A criminal case that grew out of a Youth Congress legal cell complaint has ended in the Karnataka High Court, which has quashed the proceedings against BJP leader Amit Malviya and Republic TV editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami. The FIR concerned a television programme’s claim that Turkey’s Istanbul Congress Centre is the international office of the Indian National Congress. Both petitions were allowed on Friday [Arnab Goswami v. State of Karnataka and Another; Amit Malviya v. State of Karnataka and Another].
Criminal Petition No. 7425 of 2025, filed by both men, was allowed by Justice M. Nagaprasanna. Senior Advocates Arun Shyam and Prabhuling K. Navadgi appeared for the petitioners. A detailed copy of the order was awaited at the time of writing, so the Court’s reasons are not yet available.
What quashing does, and what is not yet known
A quashing petition asks the High Court to end a criminal case before trial, on the footing that the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face value, do not justify proceeding. By allowing both petitions, the High Court has brought the investigation and any prosecution under this FIR to an end. Until the detailed order is uploaded, the ground on which the Court reached that view is not known, and no inference should be drawn about the correctness of the programme’s claim or about the complainant’s contentions, which the Court has not been reported to have examined.
The complaint of May 2025
The FIR was registered at the High Grounds police station in Bengaluru on a complaint by Shrikant Swaroop B N, head of the legal cell of the Indian Youth Congress. The complaint alleged that the accused ran a “criminally motivated campaign” to spread false claims, and that the claim about a Turkey office was meant to mislead the public, defame a political party and incite unrest. The FIR invoked Section 192 (provocation with intent to cause riot) and Section 352 (intentional insult to provoke breach of the peace) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Those are allegations in a complaint and were never tested at a trial.
The stay of May 22, 2025
Justice S. Rachaiah, sitting as vacation judge, stayed further investigation in the FIR on May 22, 2025 and issued notice to the respondents. Senior Advocate Arun Shyam, for Goswami, argued at that hearing that the programme only questioned why a political party would need an office in Turkey, which was a matter of opinion, and that a picture of the wrong office had been posted in digital content by a junior editor by oversight, which the channel clarified immediately. The prosecution countered that false information had been spread and that, although a corrigendum was issued, the programme kept airing in print and electronic media.
A civil suit that stands apart
The Indian National Congress has separately sued Goswami and Republic TV for defamation in the Delhi High Court over the same broadcast, which aired in May 2025. On March 17, 2026, Justice Mini Pushkarna registered the plaint as a suit, issued summons and notice on the interim injunction application, and granted no interim relief. In that suit Republic TV said it had apologised for “erroneously depicting a building as the Congress office in Turkey”, that a video editor on the digital desk had used the wrong image because of a technical error, and that the clip was not aired on television.
The Congress told the Court that the content was still causing harm. That civil suit is a different proceeding from the criminal case decided on Friday.
Case Title: Arnab Goswami v. State of Karnataka and Another; Amit Malviya v. State of Karnataka and Another [Criminal Petition No. 7425 of 2025]
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna, Karnataka High Court
Date of Order: October 16, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocates Arun Shyam and Prabhuling K. Navadgi for the petitioners