In a complaint filed under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly fostering animosity between religious groups, the Rajasistan High Court awarded temporary protection from arrest to Republic TV Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami on March 3, 2025.
Under the headline ” Attempt to Suppress Journalistic Freedom,” this ruling seems to be a defense of press liberties.
But a closer look reveals that the court’s ruling is essentially defective since it ignores the important difference between ethical journalism and sensationalist broadcasting that fuels public conflicts.
For years, there has been close examination and criticism directed on Arnab Goswami’s type of journalism.
His high-decibel arguments, divisive stories, and seeming ideological slowness have made him among India’s most contentious TV stars.
His approach not only strays from ethical journalism’s bounds but also seems to blur the line separating news coverage from propaganda.
Although press freedom is a pillar of democracy, it is not an unqualified entitlement to spread false information, shape public opinion, or incite communal discord.
The contentious approach of Arnab Goswami: Sensationalism or journalism?
Many have attacked Arnab Goswami’s style of reporting for its loud, forceful, very biassed character.
Particularly the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its Hindutva philosophy, his debates regularly involve unproven assertions, a lack of objectivity, and an evident predisposition toward supporting the governing administration.
Goswami’s journalistic approach sometimes magnifies official narratives while demonizing dissenting voices, therefore straying from the fundamental ideas of journalism—objectivity, factual accuracy, and balance.
His handling of politically difficult topics reveals this trend especially: his hyperbole frequently fosters division rather than informed public debate.
Goswami’s penchant to sensationalize news events—even at the risk of raising society tensions—is among the most divisive features of his reporting.
His portrayal of the 2020 Palghar mob lynching—in which a mob mercilessly slaughtered two Hindu seers and their driver—is a shining illustration of this.
Several First Information Reports (FIRs) against Goswami for allegedly using aggressive language and disseminating false information surfaced following the incident.
Though evidence suggests otherwise, his account of the event was accused of purposefully presenting it as a communal attack.
Such events generate grave questions regarding the quality of Goswami’s reporting and its possible influence in aggravating social unrest.
Media personalities run the danger of distorting public opinion and widening society divisions when they give sensationalism more priority than accurate reporting.
The 2022 Republic Bharat Broadcast: Media Manipulation Case Study
Goswami’s legal problems started with a 2022 Republic Bharat broadcast on the destruction of a temple in Rajgarh, Alwar.
Allegedly in line with an anti-encroachment campaign, the show framed the event as a planned communal attack instead of an administrative measure.
Official comments from the government had made clear that the demolition was carried out in response to illegal incursions and was not aimed at any one religious group.
But according to reports, Republic Bharat’s coverage focused the incident as an attack on Hindu religious feelings rather than including these official comments.
Such reporting clearly had an effect. According to a post-broadcast poll, 65% of viewers thought the report was contentious, underscoring how careless reporting may distort public opinion and incite unjustified social conflicts.
This trend is not exclusive of the 2022 broadcast. Several historical events point to a constant approach of using sensationalized and polarized presentation of issues to provoke emotional reactions among viewers.
The ruling of the Rajasistan High Court: An Interpretation of Press Freedom Flawed
A risky precedent is created when the Rajasistan High Court grants temporary protection from arrest to Goswami under the cover of defending journalistic freedom.
Although the press should be free from unnecessary harassment, it is equally crucial to hold reporters responsible when their reporting seriously compromises societal peace.
By shielding Goswami, the court ignores the basic difference between responsible journalism and actual press freedom. Furthermore neglected is the more general question of media responsibility, which is essential for a democracy to run properly.
Press freedom is not an unqualified license to spread false information, inspire hate, or skew facts. As the fourth pillar of democracy, the media owes it to us fair, objective, honest reporting. Ignoring this degrades public confidence and errs the democratic fabric of the country.
Ethical Issues and Republic TV: A Background of Controversies
Under Goswami’s direction, Republic TV has been mired in multiple issues casting doubt on its adherence to journalistic standards.
The station is accused among other things of manipulating Television Rating Points (TRPs). Alleging channel fraudulance in viewership data, the Mumbai Police started looking into Republic TV’s TRP ratings in October 2020.
Low-income people were allegedly bought to have their televisions tuned to Republic TV in order to rig ratings.
This episode reflects a more general issue with Republic TV’s approach to journalism: a readiness to sacrifice moral norms in search of influence and audience. Such acts not only skew the media terrain but also undermine public faith in news reporting.
The “Godi Media” Phenomenon: Emergence of Partisan Journalism
Arnab Goswami’s approach of reporting is sometimes connected with the phenomena known as “godi media,” a phrase used to characterize media outlets that blindly back the government while demonizing opposition.
Coverage of significant political events as the 2020–2021 Indian farmers’ demonstrations and the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) demonstrations clearly show this pattern.
During these events, some media sources—including Republic TV—were accused of elevating the government’s position while marginalizing the voices of demonstrators.
Supporting one-sided stories helps media outlets undermine the fundamental core of democracy, which depends on debate, criticism, and variety of opinion.
The Rajasistan High Court’s ruling to shield Goswami from legal action so validates this kind of journalism, so compromising the legitimacy of the press as an autonomous entity.
An Alert Precedent Regarding Media Ethics
Arnab Goswami’s temporary protection granted by the Rajasistan High Court is a misplaced defense of journalistic freedom. Confining journalistic freedom to sensationalism causes the judgment to fall short in maintaining the fundamental media accountability principle.
Protecting reporters from unjustified legal harassment is vital, but as so is making sure the media does not turn into a vehicle for disseminating false information, fostering community conflicts, or public opinion manipulation.
Real press freedom comes with ethical obligations: the need to honestly, fairly, and free from prejudice report. The court’s decision, which absolves Goswami of responsibility for his sensationalist methods, creates a troubling precedent that might encourage like behavior going forward.
India needs to carefully balance safeguarding reporters with guaranteeing ethical reporting if it wants to keep a strong and reliable media sector.
Alternatively, the country runs the danger of undermining the same democratic values that support freedom.
Stay Connected and Share Your Stories
For all those inspired by stories of resilience and ambition, follow us on X/Twitter and on Instagram . For those with untold stories that you would love to share, please send them to contact@thephilox.com
