Zee Media ‘misused’ the law to ‘settle scores’ with journalist Ashish Dave, says SC

Zee Media Corporation Limited “misused” the law to “settle scores” with its former journalist by getting an FIR registered against him at a police station in Rajasthan, the Supreme Court said in its detailed order uploaded on its website on March 16. The court said it was done to pre-empt any liability for Zee Media arising from its negative coverage. 

“We are satisfied that the complainant-company has misused the process of law to settle the scores and to escape possible liabilities which it may have apprehended on account of some sharp reporting,” read the order by a two-judge bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.

Noting that the complaint was a “fictional story woven meticulously on vague and speculative allegations,” the court quashed the FIR against journalist Ashish Dave, former head of Zee Rajasthan and Zee 24 Ghanta (West Bengal). The bench added that the complaint was “bereft of even a semblance of allegation laying the foundation” for criminal charges.

Working for the media conglomerate since March 2023 as the head of Zee Rajasthan, Dave was asked to resign on September 4, 2025, when a representative of Zee Media filed an FIR against him at Ashok Nagar police station in Jaipur for “unauthorized financial dealings, abuse of authority, and acts done with malafide intent to damage the reputation of the company”. 

As per the complaint, Dave had taken key “editorial and operational decisions” for the channel. Citing its internal findings and complaints it had received, Zee Media alleged that Dave demanded money from people by threatening them with negative coverage. The case was registered under sections 308(2) (extortion), 318(4) (cheating) and 351(2) (criminal intimidation) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Dave later approached the Rajasthan High Court, which refused to quash the FIR. In its order on November 26 last year, it said that the allegations were the subject of further investigation. 

‘Zee’s influence led to FIR’

The Supreme Court bench observed that alacrity in registering FIR was owed to Zee Media’s “influence”. It said that if an ordinary citizen had sought to register an FIR based on “vague allegations,” the police would not have rushed to do so. 

“We are constrained to observe that had it been an ordinary citizen who had approached the police with a complaint containing such vague allegations, the FIR would never have been registered. However, the alacrity with which the officials of Police Station Ashok Nagar proceeded to entertain the complaint of respondent No. 2-complainant-company and registered the FIR speaks volumes about the influence which the complainant wields,” read the order.

The Supreme Court called into question the entire basis of the FIR, noting that Zee Media failed to name even a single person who fell prey to Dave’s alleged “abuse of authority”. In his petition, Dave argued the company acted out of “enmity” and “ulterior motive” to harass him with “concocted” allegations. 

The court expressed further displeasure that this lack of detail persisted throughout the legal process, noting that even the Rajasthan government’s counter-affidavit failed to identify any victims.

“We may further add that even in the counter affidavit filed by the State of Rajasthan, there is no reference to any particular individual(s) who had been subjected to any of the alleged offences, i.e. extortion, cheating or intimidation, at the hands of the appellant,” read the order.

The Rajasthan government fielded top law officers, including Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SD Sanjay and Advocate General (AG) Rajendra Prasad, in the Supreme Court and the Rajasthan High Court.

Legal grounds for relief

The court said that allegations in the FIR need not be an encyclopedia but should have “basic facts”. It was expected from the “reputed media house” that it should have clearly shared details of the allegations. 

The bench further pointed out section 173(3) of BNSS, which provides for a preliminary inquiry by the police station in charge to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists in cases where a jail term is between three and seven years.

“The new regime under the BNSS specifically deals with such situations and provides an additional safeguard where the complaint is for offences carrying punishment between three to seven years. Sub-section (3) of Section 173 BNSS empowers the officer in charge of a police station, with prior permission of a superior officer, to conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter where the alleged offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term between three and seven years,” noted the Supreme Court.

Despite this, police officials filed a “mechanical” FIR without “even a semblance of verification of the fictional and conjectural allegations”.

“However, the police officials did not choose to exercise this option, and the FIR came to be registered straightaway in a mechanical manner without even a semblance of verification of the fictional and conjectural allegations made in the complaint,” the court noted.

Complaining about the media is easy. Why not do something to make it better? Support independent media and subscribe to Newslaundry today.