“Media Freedom Is Not a License for Extortion”: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Ex-Zee Rajasthan Channel Head

“Fourth Pillar Must Stand on Truth, Not Threats”— In a significant order underscoring the limits of press freedom and the boundaries of judicial intervention at the FIR stage, the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) on 26 November 2025 refused to quash FIR No. 257/2025 registered against Ashish Dave, former Channel Head of Zee Rajasthan, for alleged offences of extortion, coercion, and abuse of journalistic authority under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, while dismissing the petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, held:

“Freedom of the press is integral to democracy; however, misuse of such freedom through coercion or blackmail cannot be tolerated.”

“Press Is the Voice of the People, Not a Weapon for Personal Gain”

Referring to the pivotal role of media in a democracy, the Court acknowledged the powerful influence of journalism in public life. However, it cautioned that:

“With immense power comes the burden of responsibility… media professionals are expected to adhere to the core principles of journalism—truth, accuracy and impartiality.”

The petitioner, Ashish Dave, allegedly misused his editorial authority to extort money from vendors by threatening them with negative coverage, according to internal findings and complaints lodged by Zee Media itself. The complaint stated that Dave used the company’s news platform to broadcast defamatory or coercive content for personal gain, without authorization.

The High Court observed:

“These allegations, if proven, constitute a gross criminal misuse of the company’s platform and cause irreparable harm to the media's credibility and public trust.” [Para 7.2]

“Investigation Must Continue Unhindered—Court Cannot Conduct a Mini-Trial at FIR Stage”

Rejecting the petitioner’s plea that the FIR was an employer-employee dispute and did not disclose cognizable offences, the Court emphasized:

“At the stage of FIR, the Court is not required to delve into the evidence or evaluate probabilities. The test is whether the allegations prima facie disclose commission of a cognizable offence.” [Para 9]

Court held that the present case does not fall within any of the exceptional categories warranting quashing of the FIR.

“This is not one of those rarest of rare cases where FIR can be quashed. Allegations are serious and require thorough investigation.” [Paras 15–16]

“Allegations Supported by Witness Statements—Petitioner’s Role Cannot Be Ruled Out”

The FIR, supported by multiple witness statements recorded under Section 180 of BNSS, alleged that the petitioner demanded money from vendors under threat of broadcasting adverse content. The complainant company also clarified that these acts were unauthorized and purely personal in nature.

Despite the petitioner’s contention that no direct complainant had come forward, the Court held:

“When internal reports and third-party complaints indicate a pattern of misconduct, and several witnesses corroborate monetary demands, the FIR cannot be brushed aside.” [Para 7.2]

Judicial Remarks on Media Misconduct: “Yellow Journalism Cannot Be Legally Protected”

The Court warned against “yellow journalism”, remarking:

“Threatening or blackmailing under the guise of journalism is a serious abuse of freedom of speech under Article 19. It erodes public confidence in the media and warrants full legal scrutiny.”

The judgment also clarified that media companies have a duty to act when internal misconduct is uncovered:

“The FIR, in this case, was not motivated by personal vengeance but was based on complaints received by the company and requires proper investigation.” [Para 23]

FIR Discloses Prima Facie Offence—Quashing Not Justified

In conclusion, the High Court held that:

The FIR discloses cognizable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

No mala fide or manifest absurdity is evident in the allegations.

Quashing the FIR would amount to premature interference with the statutory investigative process.

“At this stage, whether the petitioner is innocent or guilty is a matter of evidence and trial—not one of judicial presumption.” [Para 23]

The Court dismissed the petition but left open the petitioner’s right to approach the Investigating Officer with concerns regarding fairness of investigation, and directed that if any action is to be taken, notice under Section 35 BNSS must be issued.