The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently quashed a criminal case against a journalist accused of promoting enmity through a news report on an incident of violence during a Ganesh Visarjan procession in 2025 [Uvesh Khan @ Uvesh Reporter vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh]
Justice Himanshu Joshi said that mere reporting of an incident involving violence does not constitute the offence of promoting enmity or disharmony between different groups under Section 196(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
"The nature and content of the publication, the context in which it was made, and the requisite connection with the promotion or attempted promotion of enmity between groups are material considerations," the Court said.
It added that the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution cannot be curtailed merely because a report concerns a sensitive public incident.
Any restriction on such expression must be justified in law, the bench said.
The Court was dealing with a petition moved by one Uvesh Khan, who said that he is a journalist and operates a YouTube news channel. Khan had broadcast a report concerning an incident of violence during the Ganesh Visarjan procession at Silwani in September 2025.
He was booked by the police over a complaint alleging that the manner in which the incident was reported created fear and confusion among members of the Hindu community and had the potential to provoke communal discord.
Challenging the registration of FIR, Khan's counsel argued that the report neither promoted enmity between communities nor contained any material indicating an intention to create communal disharmony.
In the order passed on October 28, the Court found that the report was based upon an actual incident of violence.
It noted that the complaint against Khan does not identify any specific words, expressions or material in his news report that promoted or attempted to promote enmity between two communities on any of the grounds under Section 196(1) of the BNS.
"The assertions that the report created fear and confusion among members of a particular community and had the potential to provoke discord are general in nature. In the absence of specific allegations disclosing the essential ingredients of the offence, the mere possibility of public outrage or communal tension cannot, by itself, justify the continuation of criminal proceedings under the aforesaid provision," the Court held.
The Court found that the material placed on record did not disclose a prima facie case under Section 196(1) of the BNS and therefore quashed the case registered by the police.
Advocate Sankalp Kochar represented the petitioner.
Government Advocate Pramod Pandey represented the State.
Advocate Raman Choubey represented the complainant.
[Read Order]