The Karnataka High Court is set to deliver its verdict on September 3 regarding petitions filed by Republic TV’s Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami and former BJP IT Cell head Amit Malviya. They seek the annulment of a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against them following a complaint by a Congress leader. The case has been registered as Amit Malviya v State of Karnataka and Arnab Goswami v State of Karnataka.
During a recent hearing, Justice M Nagaprasanna reviewed the submissions made by Senior Advocate Aruna Shyam, who represents the petitioners. Shyam provocatively questioned the basis of the FIR, rhetorically asking, “How can an FIR be filed in these kinds of cases? The nation wants to know!” This phrase echoes the signature line popularized by Arnab Goswami during his television debates.
The issue originated in May 2025 when Shrikant Swaroop BN, head of the legal cell of the Indian Youth Congress, filed a complaint against Malviya. The complaint accused Malviya of falsely stating during a Republic TV debate that the Istanbul Congress Centre in Turkey served as an office for the Indian National Congress. This allegation led to the filing of the FIR against both Malviya and Goswami.
In response, the two media figures approached the Karnataka High Court, which subsequently stayed any criminal proceedings against them in May 2025. The court has now extended this stay until the next scheduled hearing.
“Heard the learned senior counsel and SPP. Post for dictating orders on Sep 3. Interim order subsisting will continue until the next date of hearing,” Justice Nagaprasanna remarked during the proceedings.
More Read
Advocate Aruna Shyam has previously argued that the FIR against Goswami and Malviya lacks merit and is driven by political motives. Representing the State in this matter is State Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesh.
The forthcoming decision by the Karnataka High Court will likely have significant implications for both the media and political landscapes, as it addresses the intersection of free speech, political discourse, and legal accountability.
