Fourth Estate Can’t Be Curtailed Or Intimidated By State: Calcutta HC Stays FIR Against TV Journalist

The Calcutta High Court has recently stayed First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a TV journalist booked for trying to “polarise” the situation in the State by making derogatory speeches against the minority community.

Justice Rajasekhar Mantha of the Calcutta high court mentioned in his order that media, being the fourth pillar of democracy, can’t be intimidated by the State.

“The media is the fourth and an equally vital pillar of any democracy. The Fourth Estate can’t be curtailed or intimidated. The prima facie illegal FIR will hang as a sword of Damocles on the petitioner and may prevent her from pursuing her work.”

The Court heard a plea filed by one Manogya Loiwal, who was accused of spreading false, concocted, and misleading information about the recent Ram Navami violence that broke out in some parts of the State.

Her speech allegedly brought about polarisation in society between two linguistic communities. Further, it was also alleged that her statements would provoke the spread of riots in different parts of West Bengal.

Therefore, she was, booked on charges of criminal conspiracy (Section 120B), instigating communal violence (Section 153A), and promoting enmity between the two groups (Section 505), punishable under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

However, the Court noted from the case diary that the police didn’t conduct “due and appropriate inquiries” before registering the FIR.

The judge opined that “It appears from the records that the complaint was made sometime in the evening at 11:40 P.M. and FIR was registered immediately upon receipt. Clearly, no inquiries whatsoever have been made. This Court is, therefore, prima facie satisfied that the registration of the FIR against the petitioner in these facts is seriously questionable.”

Further, it stated that the materials on record don’t indicate any clear provocation towards any community.

The order reads that “There is no third person other than the complainant, who has stated that he or she is uncomfortable or feels provoked by the said statements of the petitioner.”

Thus, the FIR stayed till further orders, and the Court sought the police’s reply to the journalist’s petition.

The matter will be heard after four weeks.