'Reckless Registration of Crime': Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Filed Against Arnab Goswami

Bengaluru: In a landmark ruling that upholds journalistic freedom and protects individual liberties, the Karnataka High Court on February 13, 2025, quashed the FIR registered against Republic Media Network's Editor-in-Chief, Arnab Goswami . The FIR, filed under Section 505(2) of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code (IPC), was deemed baseless and an abuse of legal processes.

A Case of Political Vendetta?

The complaint, lodged by an office-bearer of the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee, stemmed from news coverage by Republic Kannada News channel. The channel had reported on a video received from members of the public. However, in what appears to be a politically motivated move, Arnab Goswami was wrongly implicated as the owner of Republic Kannada.

Senior Advocate Aruna Shyam, representing Arnab, argued that Arnab was wrongly and out of context implicated in the present case as being the owner of Republic Kannada and it was alleged that the channel did the reporting to rile up public opinion during the time of the election. However, Arnab had no role nor had he hosted or participated in any manner whatsoever, in the reporting in question.   

Judiciary Upholds Press Freedom

In December 2024, the Karnataka High Court had already granted a stay on the investigation, observing that the FIR amounted to a “reckless registration of a crime.” The court’s final decision to quash the FIR highlights the judiciary’s commitment to preventing the misuse of the law as a tool of harassment against independent journalists.

The defence also successfully contended that the FIR failed to substantiate any offence under Section 505(2) of the IPC. If such frivolous complaints were to be entertained, it would set a dangerous precedent of state-sponsored persecution of media professionals.

Massive Blow to the Karnataka Government’s Misuse of Power

This case exemplifies the Karnataka government’s disturbing pattern of targeting journalists and media houses that dare to expose uncomfortable truths. By weaponizing the legal system to intimidate the press, the state administration has once again demonstrated its disdain for freedom of speech and constitutional rights. However, the High Court’s intervention serves as a reminder that the rule of law must prevail over political vendettas.

Legal Representation and Verdict

The legal battle saw a strong defence team comprising Senior Advocate Aruna Shyam, Advocate Zoeb Cutlerywala from Phoenix Legal, Partner Saket Shukla from Phoenix Legal, and Advocate Mahesh Arkalgud from ATV Legal. 

Their relentless efforts ensured that justice was served in record time, sending a strong message against the wrongful use of state machinery to suppress dissent.

‘Attempted Blackmail, Harassment': Arnab After Karnataka HC Quashes Case Against Him

Republic Media Network’s Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami strongly reacted to the Karnataka High Court’s decision to quash the FIR against him, calling it an important ruling against frivolous cases filed by state governments to target journalists.

Speaking on the court’s judgment, Goswami said, "This case has an incredible impact in terms of frivolous proceedings by various state governments against journalists and media… when I was arrested and when Justice Chandrachud said that there has been a weaponisation of the process of law… and what the honourable Judge has said today is absolutely similar."

Drawing parallels between cases filed against him in Maharashtra and Karnataka, Arnab highlighted what he described as a pattern of vendetta against media professionals.

"So while you know the cases that they have filed — both the ones — obviously have no basis, the Maharashtra government case and Karnataka government case — there is an element of vendetta that the Editor-in-Chief or the promoter of a news channel or network is the first person to be called in for investigation for any frivolous case and this is an attempted blackmail," he stated.

Arnab further emphasized the personal and professional toll such legal actions impose. "So while there may be no case, we are openly told by people who manufacture these proceedings that these are attempts to harass and these harassments come at a cost because the individual has to travel, he has to appear, all such things take a toll on their professional responsibilities," he added.