The Supreme Court of India on Friday granted bail to journalist Srinivasa Rao, who was arrested by Andhra Pradesh Police on June 9 for hosting a televised panel discussion where a guest made derogatory remarks about women from Amaravati. A bench comprising Justices PK Mishra and Manmohan heard Rao’s petition challenging the legality of his arrest and judicial remand, questioning the grounds of holding a moderator responsible for a guest’s statements. “Someone else is making the statement. How can this be?” asked Justice Manmohan, noting that merely laughing or not intervening is insufficient to classify one as an abettor under criminal law.
The controversial remarks were made on June 6 by political analyst VV Krishnamraju during Rao’s panel show, where he referred to Amaravati as the “capital of sex workers.” He based his claims on data from a recent National AIDS Control Organisation (NACO) report, which indicated Andhra Pradesh has one of the highest concentrations of female sex workers in the country. The comment triggered widespread outrage from the ruling Telugu Desam Party (TDP) and Jana Sena leaders, who saw it as a grave insult to the women and cultural identity of Amaravati. Rao’s arrest drew criticism from several media and legal quarters for suppressing press freedom and misattributing criminal liability.
Krishnamraju was apprehended on June 11 near the Gosthani River in Visakhapatnam, alongside two others, and is currently being transported to Vijayawada for further proceedings. Additionally, a case has been registered against the management of Sakshi TV, the channel that aired the show, further intensifying the media accountability debate. During the bail hearing, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Andhra Pradesh government, argued that Rao was “goading” the speaker and encouraging the defamatory remark. However, Justice Manmohan countered this by stating, “When someone makes an outrageous statement, we laugh it off. That doesn’t make us co-conspirators.” The court’s stance reinforces judicial scrutiny over freedom of speech and due process in cases involving journalistic responsibility.
