POONCH, JAMMU AND KASHMIR | JUNE 29 2025 – In a significant development, the Poonch Court on Saturday directed the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against national news channels Zee News and News18 India for allegedly airing false and defamatory content about a local teacher during their coverage of Operation Sindoor, India’s recent military operation against Pakistan following the Pahalgam attack.
ORDER BY POONCH COURT
The order was passed by Sub-Judge/Special Mobile Magistrate Poonch, Shafeeq Ahmed, on a complaint filed by advocate Sheikh Mohammad Saleem. The complainant alleged that both channels wrongly identified Qari Mohammad Iqbal, a teacher killed in Pakistani shelling on May 7, as a “Pakistani terrorist” affiliated with Lashkar-e-Toiba and linked him to the 2019 Pulwama terror attack.
WHO WAS QARI MOHAMMAD IQBAL?
According to Sheikh Mohammad Saleem, the deceased was a religious teacher at Jamia Zia-ul-Uloom in Poonch and died as a civilian victim of Pakistani shelling.
However, during live reporting on Operation Sindoor, Zee News and News18 India allegedly aired stories branding him as a “notorious commander” killed in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and falsely linking him to terrorism, “without any verification from official sources,” the complaint added.
RETRACTION AND APOLOGY
Though the channels later withdrew the coverage and issued clarifications, the complainant argued that the damage had already been done. The report had included Iqbal’s photograph and full name, severely harming the reputation of the deceased and his family.
COURT’S STAND ON JURISDICTION
The police had initially objected, claiming the matter fell outside Poonch Court’s jurisdiction since the broadcasts originated from Delhi. The court, however, rejected this argument. It held that under Section 199 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), when the consequence of an act such as defamation occurs elsewhere, jurisdiction is valid in either location.
The court emphasized that the “damage occurred in Poonch, where the deceased lived, worked and was martyred.”
OBSERVATIONS ON MEDIA RESPONSIBILITY
The court made strong observations on journalistic ethics, noting:
“While the press enjoys protection under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), especially in cases involving defamation, public order and decency.”
The judge termed the branding of a deceased civilian teacher as a terrorist “without any verification” as “serious journalistic misconduct, capable of fuelling public unrest and harming social harmony.”
APPLICABLE LEGAL PROVISIONS
The court stated that even though the channels later apologized, their initial coverage amounted to defamation, public mischief, and outraging religious sentiments. These acts are punishable under:
Sections 353(2), 356, and 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000
The court further stated that the apology was “insufficient to nullify the consequences of the broadcast.”
FIR AND INVESTIGATION ORDER
Accordingly, the court directed the concerned Station House Officer to register an FIR within seven days and submit a compliance report. It also instructed the officer to conduct a fair, impartial, and time-bound investigation and forward a compliance report within the same period. A copy of the order was sent to the SSP Poonch for supervisory action.
