State: Assam

Year: 2025

Date: June 13, 2025

Source:

Censorship – News Media / Documentaries

Guwahati police have issued fresh summons to CNN News18 anchor Akanksha Swarup, and Shrasti Raghuvanshi, sister of late Raja Raghuvanshi killed in Meghalaya, over their highly objectionable comments on Kamakhya temple in Guwahati. They were originally issued notices on June 13, directing them to appear at the Crime Branch police station on June 23 and 24. However, none of them arrived for questioning.

case was filed against Swarup and Raghuvanshi  over their comments on TV claiming that human sacrifice takes place at Kamakhya temple. The controversial remarks were made by anchor Akanksha Swarup while talking to Raja Raghuvanshi’s sister Shrasti Raghuvanshi  on air on 11 June, claiming that Raja Raghuvanshi ’s murder allegedly by his wife can be a case of human sacrifice at Kamakhya temple, adding that such sacrifice takes place at the Shakti Peeth.

Updated On: October 22, 2025

Gauhati HC quashes FIR against CNN-News18 anchor over ‘defamatory’ remarks about Kamakhya Temple

The Gauhati High Court has quashed a criminal case filed against a CNN-News18 anchor over allegedly defamatory remarks claiming that human sacrifice took place at the Kamakhya Temple in Assam’s Guwahati, Bar and Bench reported.

The remarks were made by Akansha Swarup during an interview with a relative of Raja Raghuvanshi, who was allegedly killed by his wife in Meghalaya earlier this year.

During the broadcast aired in June, Swarup reportedly asked: “Since they had gone to Kamakhya, where sacrifices or human sacrifices are offered, is your family suspicious that this could be a tantric killing?”

Following the telecast, the Cyber Branch Police in Guwahati registered a first information report against Swarup on June 12 under sections of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita pertaining to promoting enmity, malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings and wounding religious feelings.

She later challenged the FIR before the High Court.

On October 15, Justice Shamima Jahan held that no prudent person could conclude that Swarup made the statement with the intent to create enmity or disharmony between groups and quashed the FIR.

However, the judge observed that Swarup’s statement was “utterly not required” and “careless”, Live Law reported.