Justice Himanshu Joshi ruled that a news report must be examined in its entirety, including its content, context and whether it was intended to promote hostility between communities.
The Court made the observations while deciding a petition filed by Uvesh Khan, also known as Uvesh Reporter, in Uvesh Khan @ Uvesh Reporter v. State of Madhya Pradesh.
The case arose from a report published on Khan’s YouTube news channel about violence during a Ganesh Visarjan procession in Silwani in September 2025. Police registered an FIR against him following allegations that his reporting created fear and confusion among members of the Hindu community and could trigger communal tensions.
Khan approached the High Court seeking the cancellation of the FIR. His counsel argued that the report neither encouraged hostility between communities nor contained any material suggesting an intention to disturb communal harmony.
Court Finds No Specific Material Supporting Communal Enmity Charge
Examining the complaint, the Court found that it failed to identify any particular words, expressions or content in the journalist’s report that could attract Section 196(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with promoting enmity between different groups.
The bench observed that allegations of creating fear, confusion or the possibility of communal discord were general in nature.
It stressed that the possibility of public outrage or communal tension cannot, on its own, justify criminal proceedings when the essential elements of the alleged offence are not established.
The Court also underlined the importance of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, noting that reporting on a sensitive public incident does not automatically warrant criminal action.
Any restriction on such expression, it said, must have a valid legal basis.
FIR Quashed After Court Finds No Prima Facie Offence
In its order dated October 28, the High Court concluded that the material on record did not establish a prima facie case against Khan under Section 196(1) of the BNS.
The Court accordingly quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the journalist.
The ruling reinforces the distinction between reporting an incident of violence and deliberately attempting to create communal hostility. A report concerning a sensitive event, the Court indicated, cannot be treated as an offence merely because it may provoke public concern or tension.
Advocate Sankalp Kochar appeared for Khan.
Government Advocate Pramod Pandey represented the State, while Advocate Raman Choubey appeared for the complainant.