Crime Today News Booked Under Serious Charges

The Power of Article 19 and the Battle for Press Freedom

Crime Today News Fights Defamation Case

By Naveed Uddin Khan Uzair

In a time when the role of the media is under scrutiny like never before, the constitutional provision under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution emerges as a vital shield for journalists, reporters, and digital content creators. The recent case registered against Crime Today News FIR. No. 184/2025 has sparked a renewed debate on freedom of the press and the misuse of legal provisions to suppress critical journalism.

The Case Against Crime Today News

On June 1, 2025, a complaint was filed at Suryapet I Town Police Station by Mohammed Muzahid, Vice Chairman of the DCC Minority Department, alleging that Shaik Rahmath Ali, the Crime Bureau Chief of Crime Today News, published a defamatory video targeting Faheem Qureshi, a senior Congress leader and Vice Chairman of the Telangana Minorities Residential Educational Institutions Society (TGMREIS).

The video in question, published on YouTube, reportedly accused the leader of misbehavior during a public event. The complainant stated that the video not only presented false and malicious allegations but also revealed the identity of a woman, allegedly involved in the event, thus violating her privacy and dignity.

As a result, a case was booked under:

Section 79 BNS (Word, gesture, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman,
Section 353 BNS (Statements conducing to public mischief),
Section 356(2) and 356(3) BNS (Defamation, Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory), and
Section 67 of the IT Act (publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form).

The case is now under investigation by Sub-Inspector M. Yedukondalu of Suryapet I Town Police Station.

Journalism or Defamation?

The controversy has sparked a broader discussion about the interpretation of journalism in the digital age. While the complainant alleges character assassination and violation of privacy, Crime Today News asserts that the content was based on publicly accessible information and intended to highlight issues of public concern.

In an official statement, Shaik Rahmath Ali stated:

“As a responsible journalist, I stand by the principles of truth and public interest. Our content is not meant to defame anyone but to bring transparency in public life. The video in question was created after receiving multiple complaints and information from sources on the ground.”

Ali further pointed out that the video was accompanied by disclaimers and had no intent to violate any individual’s dignity or privacy. “If any unintended harm was caused, we are open to reviewing and correcting the content,” he added.

The Shield of Article 19: What It Means for Journalists

Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. For journalists, this article forms the very foundation of their right to report, criticize, and expose matters of public importance.

Key protections under Article 19 for media professionals include:

Freedom to publish and broadcast news without prior censorship
Right to criticize government policies and public figures
Protection from arbitrary arrests and legal harassment
Right to express opinions, conduct interviews, and hold discussions on matters of public concern

However, these freedoms are subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), which permits the state to impose limitations in the interests of:

The sovereignty and integrity of India
Security of the State
Friendly relations with foreign states
Public order
Decency or morality
Contempt of court
Defamation
Incitement to an offense

Senior advocate and media law expert Pradeep Naidu explained

Sections 356(2) and 356(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) are meant to address serious offenses involving the use of criminal force with intent to outrage the modesty of a woman or to assault her during public service. These sections are applicable in cases of direct physical involvement or coercion, not in cases where a journalist reports on public events or allegations. Applying these sections to news reporting is a legal overreach and distorts the purpose of the law.”

According to legal analysts, invoking such stringent charges against journalists can set a dangerous precedent. “The misuse of Sections 356(2) and 356(3), especially when there’s no personal involvement or physical contact, raises questions about intent and suppression of free speech. When journalists are threatened with criminal charges for uncomfortable truths, it undermines press freedom and creates a climate of fear,” Naidu added.

Digital Journalism and Press Freedom

With the rise of platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram, digital journalism has emerged as a powerful medium to inform and engage the public. However, this rise also comes with greater scrutiny and legal challenges.

Shaik Rahmath Ali, whose Crime Today News channel has over 262,000 subscribers, said that the digital media space often faces bias and hostility from political quarters. “We do not have the same protections that mainstream media houses enjoy, yet we are doing the same work—sometimes more effectively,” he noted.

Counter-steps and Legal Response

Rahmath Ali has already initiated legal procedures to defend himself:

His legal team argues that the video was meant to raise questions, not pass judgment, and thus falls squarely under Article 19 protections.

Public and Media Support

Several journalists, bloggers, and public intellectuals have expressed solidarity with Crime Today News, emphasizing that while journalists must be responsible, they must also be free to report without fear.

Rohit Reddy, an independent journalist based in Hyderabad, commented:

“If every inconvenient report is met with a criminal complaint, who will dare speak the truth? We must differentiate between malice and public interest.”

Conclusion: A Test Case for Digital Journalism

The case against Crime Today News is more than just a legal battle; it is a test case for digital journalism in India. It raises important questions:

Where is the line between criticism and defamation?
Can digital media enjoy the same rights as traditional media?
Is Article 19 still powerful enough to protect small, independent voices?

As the investigation unfolds, all eyes will be on the judiciary and law enforcement to ensure that justice is not only done but also seen to be done—in the spirit of the Indian Constitution.

In the end, freedom of the press is not just the right of journalists—it is the right of every citizen to be informed, to question, and to speak.

Crime Today News will continue to follow this story and stand firm in our commitment to truth and transparency.