A Judicial Magistrate in Lucknow ordered the registration of a complaint against senior Aaj Tak anchor Anjana Om Kashyap for an episode from her show titled Black & White, aired on August 14, 2025, titled, “भारत विभाजन का मकसद पूरा क्यों नहीं हुआ?” (Why was the purpose of India’s partition not fulfilled?) The complaint was filed by former IPS officer Amitabh Thakur, president of Azad Adhikar Sena, who claimed that the show distorted and misrepresented history and that it “fanned class and communal animosity.” The Magistrate instructed the complainant to record his statement, scheduled for September 30, 2025, with a follow-up set for December 11, 2025.
Reports indicate that the police were instructed to register the case under new penal provisions in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Act, specifically “promoting enmity between groups” (Section 196) and “acts against national integration” (Section 197), after initially declining to file an FIR, suggesting a judicial order was preferred.
The Broadcast’s Framing Under Scrutiny
In the complaint filed, Thakur argued that to deem Partition as an “unfinished project” was dangerous language that lent credence to questioning the legitimacy of Muslims who chose to remain in India after 1947.
Kashyap remarked during the programme: “यह विभाजन धर्म के आधार पर हुआ लेकिन मैं आपको दिखाती हूं कि जिस मकसद से ये विभाजन किया गया था वह मकसद कभी पूरा ही नहीं हुआ.” (This Partition happened based on religion, but I will show on the big screen that the purpose for which this Partition was carried out was never fulfilled.) She referenced migration figures that suggested that India has a population of four crore Muslims, of which only 96 Lakh migrated to Pakistan, and more Hindus migrated into India. She compared the number of Hindus emigrating from East and West Pakistan to Muslims emigrating from India. She used this as evidence that the religious basis for Partition had not been fulfilled.
The complaint points out that these numbers were inconsistent (at times 96 lakh, at other times 72 lakh) and were used to inflame division. Further, the social media caption accompanying the broadcast — “Out of 4 crores, only 96 lakh Muslims went to Pakistan! What has happened to the purpose of Partition?” — intensified the attempt at divisiveness. Thakur claimed this framing was “venomous, destructive, and divisive,” emphasizing the timing of the post, aiming to inflame possible animosity rather than facilitate debate, on the eve of Independence Day.
In a nutshell, the complaint states that the framing of the episode and selective statistics crossed the line from historical discussion to communal provocation, raising the question of Muslims’ belonging in India and undermining nation-building.
The Targeting of the Anchor, and not the Network
The complaint focuses entirely on Anjana Om Kashyap, completely ignoring the liability of the news channel and the producers of the show. This illustrates a typical prosecutorial trend: complaints about speech that airs on broadcast usually starts with the anchor, who is the most visible face of the programme. They frame the conversation and speak the words on air, which makes them the most identifiable responsible person.
Legally, this is grounded in Section 196 and Section 197 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Section 196: “Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, caste, language or community, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups.”
Section 197: “Whoever, by words either spoken or written… does any act prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, regional or language groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity or which is prejudicial to the integration of India.”
As these provisions target the speaker or publisher of offending words, it is obvious that the anchor will be the first possible target. In contrast, attaching liability to the producers or the network would require some evidence of intent (at the organisational level), such as editorial instructions or policy documents, evidence that complainants are virtually never in possession of at the time of filing.
Nevertheless, broadcasters are subject to the terms of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, which disallows certain programming. Rule 6 of the Programme Code, 1994 states, programming that “offends good taste or decency; criticizes friendly countries; attacks religions or communities; or is likely to encourage or incite violence or contain anything against maintenance of law and order, or which promotes anti-national attitudes”. Enforcement of this act is administrative, with warnings, advisories, and the suspension of the transmission.
In practice, then, while anchors personify the criminal complaints through the BNS, networks face longer regulatory and civil enforcement under the Cable Act (i.e., through the NBDSA censoring channels, on multiple complaints, for coverage depicted bias). It is this distinction that explains that Kashyap is in the first position in naming; even as it remains an open question, it ought to aptly reflect organization-wide editorial responsibility.
The Need for Networks to Bear Responsibility
Although anchors are a visible part of the television programme, they do not simply determine what is “in” and “out” of a broadcast. Even when anchors say what we call “the cue,” editorial parameters on framing, tickers, and promotional captions, e.g., “Out of 4 crore Muslims, only 96 Lakh went to Pakistan! Why was the purpose of Partition not attained?” unequivocally involve producers and management as well. When we advocate that the performance of values in context rests on anchors, we obscure the ability to hold the system accountable for shared risk.
The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, provides a statutory avenue to litigate network-level liability. The 1995 Reg Act includes Rule 6 of the Programme Code stating that programmes cannot (i) attack or denigrate religions or communities or (ii) likely to encourage or incite violence. The prohibitions apply to the corporate entity as the broadcaster; the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting could issue advisories, order programming take-downs, and suspend licenses of broadcasters in violation.
The News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) decisions establish that networks do shoulder accountability, engaging even where an individual’s utterances lead to systemic failures in providing appropriate editorial guidance.
Consequently, a two-pronged strategy is required. The BNS may impose criminal liability on the anchor for their words on air, and yet there are regulatory and self-regulatory structures that can scrutinise the network. Only by joining personal and institutional accountability can remedies, or responses, be more than just a symbolic sanction and can provide robust monitoring of inciting broadcasts.
Law, Liability and the Limits of Broadcast Freedom
Anjana Om Kashyap’s complaint is not just a single incident of a journalist failing to uphold self-regulation, but part of a broader, troubling trend regarding journalism in Indian broadcast media. Over the last decade, prime time debates have blurred the line between reporting the news and inflammatory rhetoric, with news anchors embracing combative formats that normalize steady and increasing polarization. Courts and regulators have had to resort to warning or restraining these excesses, recognizing the tension between free speech, the right to express opinions, Article 19 (1) (a) the fundamental right to freely express opinion and feelings in India, and state responsibilities under Article 19(2) to reasonably restrict in the interests of harm, public order and peace.
Judicial rulings created problems with this balancing act. In the Sudarshan News “UPSC Jihad” case (2020), the Supreme Court stated free speech did not give license to cast aspersions or malign any community or individual, and restrained the broadcast temporarily pending consideration of a code of ethics. Before and after the Sudarshan News ruling, High Courts have intervened with varying balances. The Delhi High Court in 2020 cautioned broadcasters that the constitutional threshold did not allow hate violence to abide. Overall, precedential rulings show us courts are not reluctant to intervene if and when the media, as news reporting, crosses the threshold from commentary critical of violence or hate to incitement.
Interventions before the NBDSA have already illustrated the efficacy of complaints in recalibrating the course. The NBDSA, in recent years, has censured channels such as Times Now Navbharat and Zee News for coverage that was found to be partial; ordered the revocation of a misleading ticker; and noted, when addressing anchors participating in sensitive debates, that neutrality is required. These decisions clarify that journalists and anchors, as custodians of public deliberation, must practice restraint and cannot rely on the protection of free speech to underwrite their framing when it leads to communal discord.
The Lucknow case is part of a broader effort to hold mainstream media accountable for its third-party functions. Free speech is one of the pillars of democracy in India, but it is not absolute; Article 19 (2) lays out the balancing act between liberty and public order, or harmony. When behaviour or content from a newsroom turns the journalist or a news anchor into a provocateur, it creates communal discord and political polarization, which undermines the credibility of journalism, therefore, the right to free speech and academic freedom. Legal interventions – criminal complaints, Cable Act enforcement, or internal rules/regulations – are not meant to silence the press, but to remind them that the right to speak correlates with the responsibility to inform responsibly, and contribute to the common good through public deliberation.
Balancing Free Speech and Communal Harmony
The Lucknow court’s order against Anjana Om Kashyap represents a clear signal from the judiciary of rising impatience with primetime broadcasts that shift from hard news commentary to communal provocation. By doing so, the court’s action says not only that accountability of the anchor is needed, while the network is virtually let off the hook – it addresses this issue unevenly. However, this court ruling is also a possible opportunity to consider how the judicial, institutional, and experiential liability may be expanded to ensure responsibility for both anchor and network. The constitutional question still to be resolved is how to balance free speech with the state’s obligation to protect public order in a state of discontent. Speech can only be sanctioned for discomfort, not for disingenuous interruption of social harmony. For a democracy like India, the work is not to punish one anchor or one show, but rather to build systemic safeguards – through criminal law, policy regulation, and ethically responsible newsroom practice – that allow journalism to inform, interrogate, and unite stories rather than mislead and divide stories.
(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this has been worked on by Preksha Bothara)
Image: livelaw.in
Related
Broadcasting Bias: CJP’s fight against hatred in Indian news
CJP Impact! Two favourable orders on complaints against Sudhir Chaudhary’s ‘Black and White’ shows