Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against CNN-News18 Anchor Over Remarks Alleging Human Sacrifice At Kamakhya Temple

The Gauhati High Court quashed an FIR registered against CNN-News18 anchor Akanksha Swarup over allegedly defamatory remarks claiming practice of human sacrifice at Maa Kamakhya Temple during a broadcast aired in June. 

The statement is stated to have been made by the petitioner during an interview with the relative of deceased Raja Raghuvanshi allegedly killed by his wife in Meghalaya earlier this year. It was alleged that during the said telecast, she stated on air that human sacrifice is being practiced at Maa Kamakhya Temple and that she had made that statement as a declarative factual assertion.

The petitioner's counsel referred to a question put by the petitioner to the relatives of the deceased and said that the case could have been a case of human sacrifice and that news channel spoke with the deceased brother who said that it might be a case of human sacrifice because the attack was from behind and the garland was placed on the neck of the deceased.

He said that a  further question was put by the petitioner that since the relatives of the deceased have gone to Kamakhya, where the sacrifice or human sacrifice are offered, the same could be in the suspicion of the relatives that it was a tantric killing. It was submitted that the petitioner by putting those questions had not stated her mind or her opinion, but had stated about what she heard from the relatives of the deceased person as the word used is “they”.

It was also submitted that immediately after the show, the news channel had expressed apology by stating that the petitioner had referred “human sacrifice” erroneously at the holy Kamakhya Temple and that there was a complete error of judgment and further that they had deleted all the comments from their platforms. 

Justice Shamima Jahan said that the question put to the interviewee stated, "Since they had gone to Kamakhya, where sacrifices or human sacrifices are offered, is your family suspicious that this could be a tantric killing.”

Perusing the same, the court said:

"In the said statement, it is reflected that the middle words where sacrifices or human sacrifices are offered are stated are purportedly the words of the petitioner and as such, it cannot be said that these words are not hers and are the words of the relatives of the deceased from whom the petitioner had heard many things. Further, in the FIR, it is stated that the petitioner had made statements which is as follows “Narbali (human sacrifice) is being practiced at Kamakhya” and it is also stated that she made the statement without any official source, religious authority or historical validation. As such, it is seen that statements which are not pleasant in nature were made in connection with religious activity at Kamakhya, which has consequences".

The court said that the FIR was registered under BNS Sections 196(2), 299 and 302. The court said that Section 196 would not apply as the comments made by the petitioner were "not in any place of worship or in an assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremony".

It said that Section 299 provides that "whoever with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings" of any class of citizen of India by words or by signs insults or attempt to insult religion or religious belief of that class may be punished with the prescribed punishment.

"However, the said requirement that the accused person with the malicious intention deliberately uses words does not find place in the instant case. It can also be noticed that the petitioner while making the said statements that human sacrifices are offered at Kamakhya cannot said to be with the deliberate and malicious intention for outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizen of India. It can also be not said that by making that statement, she had intentions to insult or she has attempted to insult religion or religious beliefs of a particular class," it said. 

"It seems she had carelessly made that statement without any thoughtful consideration into it. The same should not have been uttered by the petitioner in public forum, which would entail the said consequence. However, as far as the ingredients of Section 299 of the BNS, 2023 is concerned, the same may not be attracted in the instant case against the petitioner," the court added.

With respect to Section 302, which provides that whoever with "deliberate intention of wounding the religious beliefs" of any person utters any word may be punished with the prescribed punishment, the court said that "deliberate intention" of the petitioner was found to be missing by "prima facie examination of the contents of the interview".

"...It is noticed that the main purpose of the interview was to speak about the death of the deceased person under the mysterious circumstances and it was only to offer a view to the public by questioning the relative of the deceased and to extract answers as to under what conditions and circumstances the deceased could have met his death. As such, the deliberate intention which is required in both the Sections i.e., Section 299 and 302 cannot be said to be visible in the instant case," the court added.

The court said that by reading the contents of the FIR as well as the question and answer in the interview, no prudent person can come to a conclusion that the questions put by the petitioner and the answers given by the relative of the deceased person as well as the contents of the FIR was with the object of creating enmity between groups or any attempt to promote enmity, disharmony between any kind of groups.

The court however said:

"It will not be out of context to however mention herein that the said statements were utterly not required in the facts of the case and the same were totally careless on the part of the petitioner as well as the interviewee. Statements made in public forum should be well thought of. The petitioner as such is constrained not to make any such statement in near future before any forum much less public media at any point of time without any authority and validation".

It thus quashed the FIR. 

Case title: Akanksha Swarup v/s State of Assam and Anr.

Crl.Pet./1187/2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order