कलकत्ता उच्च न्यायालय ने आनंदबाजार पत्रिका के पत्रकारों को गेरुआ गुंडामी शीर्षक पर दर्ज प्राथमिकी (FIR) में अंतरिम संरक्षण (interim protection) प्रदान किया है, क्योंकि पुलिस ने उनकी हिरासत में पूछताछ (custodial interrogation) को अनावश्यक माना और उन्होंने जांच में पूरा सहयोग किया।
KOLKATA — The Calcutta High Court has granted interim protection from coercive police action to the editor and a journalist of prominent Bengali daily Anandabazar Patrika (ABP). The legal proceedings stem from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against the news outlet over its choice of headline describing campus violence at Jadavpur University.
Hearing the matter (Ishani Datta Ray & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.), a single-judge bench presided over by Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya directed the West Bengal Police not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners until December 15, 2026, or until further orders.
Background of the Dispute
The controversy originates from an article published by Anandabazar Patrika regarding violent clashes that erupted on the Jadavpur University campus. The confrontation occurred between members of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) and Left-affiliated student union groups during a general body meeting of the Faculty of Engineering and Technology Students' Union (FETSU).
The report, published the following day, carried the Bengali headline “Gerua Gundami” (translated as "Saffron Hooliganism").
Following the publication, a complainant approached the Bowbazar Police Station in Kolkata, alleging that the term "Gerua"—a color traditionally associated with Hinduism—when linked directly with the word for hooliganism, intentionally hurt the religious sentiments of the Hindu community. Based on the complaint, law enforcement authorities registered an FIR invoking several penal statutory provisions, including Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which penalizes acts promoting disharmony, hatred, or enmity between different religious or social groups.
Submissions Before the High Court
Fearing potential arrests or harsh police measures, the editor and the reporting journalist moved the High Court seeking the quashing of the criminal proceedings or, in the alternative, protection against coercive action.
During the arguments, senior legal counsel representing the journalists contended that:
- Scope of Grievance: The criminal complaint was focused strictly on the editorial framing of the headline, with no specific grievance or objection raised regarding the factual accuracy of the underlying news report detailing the campus clash.
- Inapplicability of Offense: The statutory ingredients required to invoke Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita were absent. Counsel argued that the headline did not contain statements aimed at inciting enmity or hatred between two distinct religious communities or groups.
- Proportionality and Compliance: The journalists had consistently adhered to procedure by responding to all official notices issued under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and had fully cooperated with the ongoing investigation.
Representing the State of West Bengal, the prosecution informed the bench that custodial interrogation of the two journalists was not deemed necessary for the progress of the investigation at this juncture.
Findings and Directives of the Court
Taking note of the State’s stance and the petitioners' ongoing cooperation, Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya held that immediate custodial measures were unnecessary.
The Court observed that the offenses alleged in the FIR carry maximum statutory punishments of less than seven years, bringing the matter under established procedural safeguards that favor non-custodial investigation unless exceptional circumstances arise.
In its order, the High Court specified:
- Interim Safeguard: The investigating agency is restrained from taking any coercive measures against the journalists up to December 15, 2026, or until further judicial directions.
- Duty to Cooperate: The relief is contingent upon the petitioners continuing to cooperate fully with the investigating officers and appearing as required under future procedural notices.
- State’s Liberty: The State retains the right to apply for modification or revocation of the protective order should the petitioners fail to comply with investigative requirements.
Addressing the challenge regarding Section 196 of the BNS, the High Court clarified that it was not determining the legal applicability of the penal section at this preliminary stage. The bench observed that evaluating the exact legal charges remains within the domain of the police agency as it completes its investigation.
Next Steps
The High Court has scheduled the next hearing for December 1, 2026, when it will review the progress of the investigation and consider further directions regarding the maintenance or modification of the interim protection order.
Description: The Calcutta High Court has granted interim protection from police action to the editor and a journalist of Anandabazar Patrika over an FIR registered against them.
The case stems from a news report covering violent clashes between student groups at Jadavpur University, which was published under the headline "Gerua Gundami" (Saffron Hooliganism). A police complaint alleged that associating the word "Gerua" with hooliganism hurt Hindu sentiments, prompting charges under Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for promoting disharmony.
Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya directed the West Bengal Police not to take coercive steps against the journalists until December 15, 2026. The Court noted their ongoing cooperation with the investigation and the State's submission that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The matter will be heard next on December 1, 2026.