The Calcutta High Court on Thursday granted interim relief to the editor and a journalist of Anandabazar Patrika (ABP) from coercive action in a First Information Report (FIR) registered against them over the newspaper's use of the expression “Gerua Gundami” (Saffron Hooliganism) in a news headline [Ishani Datta Ray & Anr. v The State of West Bengal & Ors.].
The newspaper had used the expression to describe violence that unfolded at the Jadavpur University on August 20.
Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya granted interim relief to the accused after noting that the journalists had appeared before the police in response to notices issued during the investigation and had complied with them.
During the hearing, the State also submitted that custodial interrogation of the journalists was not required.
Taking note of the submissions, the Court directed the police not to take coercive action.
"Concerned police authorities are directed not to take coercive steps against petitioners till 15th December, 2026 or until further order, whichever is earlier. Petitioners (the journalists) shall cooperate with the investigation and shall comply with the notices, if issued in future in connection with aforesaid criminal prosecution," said the Court.
The FIR stemmed from a report published by Anandabazar Patrika on violence at Jadavpur University on August 19-20.
Members of the ABVP and Left-affiliated student groups had clashed during a general body meeting of the Faculty of Engineering and Technology Students' Union, leaving several students injured. The rival groups blamed each other for the violence and accused the other side of bringing outsiders onto the campus.
In its August 21 report on the incident, ABP used the headline “Gerua Gundami” (Saffron Hooliganism).
A subsequent complaint objected to the use of “Gerua” alongside “hooliganism”, alleging that it hurt Hindu sentiments. An FIR was registered at Bowbazar Police Station on August 28.
The journalists subsequently approached the High Court, challenging the criminal proceedings and seeking protection from coercive police action.
During Thursday's hearing, the counsel appearing for the journalists argued that the complaint was directed at the headline alone and did not raise any grievance about the contents of the news report.
He also challenged the applicability of Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with promoting disharmony or enmity between different groups. The counsel argued that the complaint did not contain the necessary allegation of enmity between two or more groups.
The Court, however, made it clear that it was not deciding whether Section 196 applied to the case. It said that question would fall within the investigating agency's domain while completing the investigation.
Notably, the case had come before the High Court earlier this month.
On September 3, the State had assured the Court that no coercive steps would be taken against the journalists, provided they complied with notices issued by the investigating agency.
The Court on Thursday noted that the journalists had since complied with the notices issued under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, and that the offences invoked in the FIR carry punishment of less than seven years.
The Court then directed the journalists to continue cooperating with the investigation and comply with any further notices. The State was given liberty to approach the Court if they fail to cooperate and seek modification or cancellation of the protection.
The matter will next be heard on December 1.
Senior Advocates SN Mookherjee and Sandipan Ganguly along with advocates Arunabha Deb, Deepan Kr Sarkar, Ashika Daga, Matri Prasad Das and Sampurna Mukherjee appeared on behalf of the journalist.
Additional Advocate General (AGG) Rajdeep Mazumder along with advocates Moyukh Mukherjee and Sayan Mukherjee represented the State of West Bengal.
[Read Order]