Gauhati High Court upholds press freedom, ruling that journalism cannot be criminalised for highlighting issues of religious fundamentalism, militancy, migration and demographic threats in Assam.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Gauhati (Assam): The Gauhati High Court on August 7, 2025, quashed criminal proceedings against journalist Kongkon Borthakur, who was accused of promoting communal disharmony through a newspaper article published in 2016. The case, Kongkon Borthakur vs. The State of Assam & Anr., highlights the fine balance between freedom of expression and restrictions under criminal law.
Background of the Case
The controversy arose from a report published in the Assamese daily Dainik Janambhumi on November 8, 2016. The article addressed sensitive issues such as illegal migration, religious fundamentalism, demographic changes, and militant activities in Assam.
Following this, Farid Islam Hazarika, President of the All Assam Muslim Students’ Union (Sivasagar), lodged an FIR alleging that the report attempted to disturb communal peace in the region. This led to the registration of a case under Section 153A/34 IPC (promoting enmity between groups).
The journalist moved the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that the article was a product of ground-level research and aimed at raising legitimate concerns rather than inciting violence or hatred.
Court’s Observations
Justice Pranjal Das examined the allegations, the FIR, and the contents of the article in detail. The Court emphasized several key points:
Core Duty of Journalism – It is the responsibility of journalists to highlight burning social issues. Reporting on migration, fundamentalism, and militancy cannot, in itself, amount to criminality.
Essential Ingredients of Section 153A IPC – For prosecution under Section 153A, three elements are necessary:
- At least two communities must be pitted against each other.
- There must be mens rea (intention) to create hatred or enmity.
- The act must have the potential to incite violence or disturb public order.
The Court found that these ingredients were absent in this case.
ALSO READ: “Sadhguru EXPOSED” or Free Press Misused? Isha Foundation Moves SC Against Nakkheeran
The Court relied on landmark cases such as,
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) – Principles of quashing FIRs.
- Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya (2021) – Mens rea is essential under Section 153A.
- Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P. (1997) – At least two groups must be involved for Section 153A to apply.
- No Targeting of Any Community – The article did not cast aspersions on any specific religious or ethnic group. Instead, it discussed broader social concerns of public importance.
Final Judgment
The Court concluded that the FIR did not disclose the ingredients of Section 153A IPC. It categorically stated:
“Raising concerns about illegal migrants, religious fundamentalism, militant activities and demographic threats to the indigenous people cannot, by itself, be construed as an attempt to create enmity between groups or to incite violence.”
Accordingly, the FIR and subsequent proceedings in Sivasagar P.S. Case No. 1008/2016 were quashed in their entirety.
ALSO READ: The Wire Blocked Across India: Govt Order Sparks Outrage Over Press Freedom
Appearance:
For the Petitioner: MS.A NEOG, MR.K GOSWAMI, MR. P K GOSWAMI, MS. J GOGOI
For the Respondent: PP, ASSAM
Case Title:
Kongkon Borthakur vs. The State of Assam & Anr.
Crl.Pet./988/2016
READ JUDGMENT & ORDER HERE
