The 'Seditious' Articles, Interviews, Authors: Breaking Down the Assam Police FIR Against The Wire
The Wire Analysis
Real journalism holds power accountable
Since 2015, The Wire has done just that.
But we can continue only with your support.
New Delhi: The FIR filed by the Assam Police Crime Branch against founding editor of The Wire Siddharth Varadarajan, consulting editor Karan Thapar and others – which The Wire was able to access on August 20 after seven days of trying – makes broad-brush allegations that cover a wide spectrum of articles and interviews. Varadarajan and Thapar received summons under the FIR on August 14 and August 18, respectively, but were given no details of the case at the time.
The FIR lists a number of charges, the most serious of which is Section 152, Bharatiya Nyay Samhita – 'acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India'. This is the analogous to Section 124A of the old Indian Penal Code, which was labelled 'sedition' and was stayed by the Supreme Court in 2023 because of its rampant abuse.
Though the Crime Branch summons were issued on August 12, it turns out the FIR was actually registered way back on May 9, 2025 and only activated on the day the Supreme Court granted Varadarajan and The Wire's journalists protection from coercive action by the Assam Police in another FIR registered in Morigaon on July 11, 2025. The Morigaon FIR was untraceable at the time and it is only because a well-placed source alerted The Wire to its existence that the news platform was able to approach the courts.
On August 22, the Supreme Court granted Varadarajan and Thapar protection from coercive action in the May 9 FIR as well.
Now that The Wire has been able to access a copy of the Crime Branch FIR (03/2025), here's a breakdown of what it says.
Persons named in FIR
- Siddharth Varadarajan [Founding Editor, The Wire]*
- Karan Thapar [Consulting Editor, The Wire]*
- Najam Sethi [Pakistani journalist and former Caretaker Chief Minister of Punjab in Pakistan]
- Ashutosh Bharadwaj [Editor, The Wire Hindi]
- Satya Pal Malik [Former Governor of J&K and Meghalaya, now deceased]
[*: Summons issued to Nos. 1 and 2 on August 12, 2025 – and received – to appear before the Crime Branch, Guwahati, on August 22, 2025. Whether summons have been issued to No. 3, 4, 5 is not known]
Persons not directly named in FIR but whose specific articles/interviews published in The Wire are described in the FIR as endangering the sovereignty of India etc.:
- A.S. Dulat, former RAW chief
- Col (retd) Ajai Shukla, defence analyst and columnist
- Rohit Kumar, educationist
- Avinash Mohananey, former official in Intelligence Bureau
- Anand K. Sahay, senior journalist
- Ali Ahmed, retired Colonel, Indian Army
- Manoj Joshi, senior journalist and senior fellow, Observer Research Foundation
- Harish Khare, former Editor of The Tribune, former Media Adviser to the Prime Minister of India
- Nirmanyu Chouhan, researcher
- Sanjiv Krishna Sood, former additional director general, BSF
- Rahul Bedi, senior defence journalist
In addition to the five individuals named, the FIR, in effect, exposes 11 individuals – many of whom have had a distinguished career in the Indian intelligence agencies, army, security forces, media, education and research – to the danger of an ad hoc, roving inquiry by the Assam Police, including the possibility of summons and even arrest at a future date since it is their articles and interviews which have been cited as endangering the sovereignty of the country.
The Sections of law invoked
Section 152, Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) – Acts endangering sovereignty unity and integrity of India
Section 196, BNS – Promoting enmity between different groups
Section 197(1)(d), BNS – Making or publishing false or misleading information, jeopardising the sovereignty, unity and integrity or security of India
Section 3(6), BNS – Act committed with criminal knowledge or intention
Section 353, BNS – Statements conducing to public mischief
Section 45, BNS – Abetment of a thing
Section 61, BNS – Criminal conspiracy
What the FIR says
Note: Reproduced below are relevant extracts from the FIR for each of the impugned interviews and articles, as filed by the Crime Branch, along with a brief analysis of what the FIR ignores. Material published by The Wire is in the public domain and can be seen and comprehended by everyone. Individuals have the the right to disagree with what we publish and we encourage a public debate, but criminalising publication throttles debate and scuttles the kind of democratic accountability that constitutional republics like India need.
§
The FIR starts with a description of the Pahalgam terrorist attack and then says:
“In the immediate aftermath, India was on high alert communal harmony was fragile, public emotions ran high, and the Government of India initiated diplomatic and military responses to defend national security. It was a time when responsible media coverage was of utmost importance to maintain public order and national unity in the face of a grave security challenge. It is in this sensitive national climate that the online news platform ‘The Wire’ and certain of its Authors/Editors published a series of Articles and Commentaries (between late April and early May 2025) that prima facie undermines India’s sovereignty and security, promote enmity and public disorder, and spread misinformation. The following are the most serious instances, with details of each Article”.
List of impugned articles from The Wire mentioned in the FIR
- Interviews with Najam Sethi, Ashutosh Bharadwaj and former J&K Governor Satya Pal Malik
Note: No dates, headlines or link has been mentioned in FIR in relation to these interviews. No specific sentences or quotes from any of the interviews are mentioned.
From our archive, it is possible the FIR refers to:
(i) Karan Thapar interview with Satya Pal Malik on May 6, 2025. Headline: 'PM Narendra Modi is “Besharam”, “Darpok” and “Must Apologise” to India for Pahalgam: Satya Pal Malik’.
(ii) Karan Thapar interview with Najam Sethi on April 28, 2025. Headline: 'Watch | Pahalgam Terror Attack and the India-Pakistan Clash It Has Provoked'.
Note: There is no interview that Karan Thapar did of Ashutosh Bharadwaj, Editor, The Wire Hindi.
What the FIR says about these interviews:
“In a deeply disturbing trend, Journalist Karan Thapar has hosted a series of interviews on ‘The Wire’ Platform with individuals such as Najam Sethi, Ashutosh Bhardwaj, and former JK Governor Satya Pal Malik, wherein grave and offensive remarks have been made against the Government of India, particularly in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack of 22.04.2025. These interviews go beyond journalistic scrutiny and appear to provide a platform for unverified, inflammatory, and politically charged statements that directly or indirectly assign blame to the Indian State for acts of terrorism perpetrated by cross-border elements. Particularly alarming is the repeated use of these interviews to suggest complicity, negligence, or even orchestration by Indian authorities, an insinuation that plays directly into the hands of enemy propaganda and sows distrust among the citizenry. The featuring of Najam Sethi adds an international dimension that risks projecting India’s constitutional democracy as oppressive, while potentially lending intellectual validation to narratives peddled by hostile regimes. When such interviews are timed immediately after a terror attack and are broadcast widely to a domestic and global audience, they cannot be seen as mere dissent, they risk becoming instruments of misinformation, sedition, and national destabilisation under the cloak of journalism.”
What the FIR ignores:
The claims of "orchestration by Indian authorities" made by Najam Sethi about Pahalgam reflected official Pakistani talking points about the terrorist attack and they were vigorously and robustly challenged and confronted by Karan Thapar at every turn. Far from "projecting India’s constitutional democracy as oppressive", as the FIR claims, the interview with Sethi did the opposite: By showcasing a leading Indian journalist's willingness to engage with and challenge Sethi's arguments face to face, it actually projected India's democracy as robust and confident.
Former J&K governor Satyapal Malik has been criticising Prime Minister Modi's handling of terrorism going back to Pulwama and there was legitimate public interest in hearing what he had to say in the aftermath of Pulwama. The allegation of "negligence" was being widely made and debated, including by some of the survivors as well as security analysts.
Date: April 25, 2025
Author: Karan Thapar interview of A.S. Dulat, former RAW chief, and Col (retd) Ajai Shukla, defence analyst and columnist.
What the FIR says about this article:
“is not only insensitive but dangerously subversive. By portraying the Indian State as entirely ineffective and glorifying Pakistani terrorists as “smarter than us,” the content recklessly erodes public confidence in national security institutions and undermines the morale of our armed forces. The sweeping claim that ‘normalcy in Jammu Kashmir is 100% untrue’, made without any concrete evidence, directly contradicts the constitutional mandate of territorial integrity and stability, and fuels secessionist narratives. Such content, disseminated at a time of national mourning, provokes public disaffection against the State, incites potential unrest, and emboldens external enemies by showcasing internal discord. It is a gross misuse of media freedom that transgresses into acts prejudicial to the sovereignty and security of India and squarely attracts penal consequences under laws meant to protect the integrity and unity of the Nation.”
What the FIR ignores:
The headline of this video raises genuine issues of security mismanagement. Several security concerns – including the complete lack of security personnel at the Baisaran valley and confusion amongst authorities on whether the meadow was supposed to be open for tourists or not – have been discussed widely as a matter of concern for the nation, given the tragedy that occurred.
Date: May 6, 2025
Author: Rohit Kumar, educationist
What the FIR says about this article:
"The Article is an egregious display of insensitivity, political mockery, and deliberate provocation at a time of national crisis. By caricaturing the Prime Minister of India through distorted metaphors like “Upekshasana” and “Santrasanasana,” the article trivialises the pain and mourning of the Nation and disrespects the solemnity of a grave national security challenge. It not only belittles the Constitutional Office of the Prime Minister but also maligns the response mechanisms of the Indian State in the face of terrorism, thereby weakening public trust in the Government’s ability to protect its citizens. Instead of uniting the Country in grief and determination, the article seeks to polarise, demean, and ridicule with sarcastic venom, equating legitimate governance actions with fearmongering and deception. The targeted vilification of national leadership during a time of external aggression amounts to creating internal discord, which can inflame tensions, mislead the public, and aid enemy propaganda narratives. Such writing, under the garb of opinion, dangerously straddles the line between satire and sedition and poses a serious threat to public order, national morale, and democratic unity.”
What the FIR ignores:
Far from trivialising pain and mourning, the article begins by talking about family members of those killed in Pahalgam and the courage they showed in the aftermath of the attack. Criticising the prime minister and his individual actions and inactions have been termed sedition by the complainant – equating the nation's identity with one leader.
Date: April 28, 2025
Author: Avinash Mohananey, former official in Intelligence Bureau
What the FIR says about this article:
“This is a reckless and inflammatory piece that exploits a national tragedy to delegitimise the Indian State and its Constitutional actions in Jammu Kashmir. By framing the Pahalgam terror attack as a failure of India’s sovereign policies and echoing enemy narratives, the Article dangerously shifts blame from Pakistan-sponsored terrorism to domestic governance. It undermines the armed forces sows distrust in national institutions and provides intellectual cover to separatist sympathies. In a time of national mourning, such content is not just provocative, it is detrimental to National Security and Public Order.”
What the FIR ignores:
This article, written by a former Intelligence Bureau official – a major part of whose career was spent countering Pakistan-sponsored terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir – offers a legitimate critique of the Union government's current Kashmir policy. Nowhere does it blame domestic governance for Pakistan-sponsored terrorism; instead, it talks of growing alienation in Jammu and Kashmir as a result of New Delhi's actions on one hand, and domestic politics in Pakistan that have led up to this moment, on the other.
Date: May 6, 2025
Author: Anand K. Sahay, senior journalist
What the FIR says about this article:
“Is a deeply provocative and politically loaded piece that trivialises a grave terror attack into a commentary on domestic politics. By portraying national security actions as products of a “propaganda ecosystem” and reducing legitimate leadership responses to satire, it undermines India’s credibility during a sensitive time. This kind of narrative weakens national morale, emboldens adversaries, and dangerously distorts the intent of counterterrorism efforts, threatening internal stability and international standing..”
What the FIR ignores:
The turning of national calamity into a propaganda vehicle for the ruling party is a legitimate ground for comment. This article questions why the prime minister was not speaking a more inclusive, calm and collected language at a time of national grief.
Date: April 25, 2025
Author: Ali Ahmed, retired Colonel, Indian Army
- 'In This New Phase of India-Pak Relations, Bludgeoning Kashmir Is Not the Answer
'
Date: May 7 , 2025
Author: Manoj Joshi, senior journalist and senior fellow, Observer Research Foundation
Date: May 8, 2025. [Referred in the FIR as “IAF Rafale Downed by Pakistan”]
Author: The Wire Staff
Note: This story was removed from view by The Wire pursuant to an order under the IT Act by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, on May 9, 2025.
- 'After Operation Sindoor'
Note: This headline is contained in the FIR and there is no other information and there is no article by this title which shows up in our search of The Wire.
What the FIR says about articles No. 6-9:
“the publication of these five Articles by ‘The Wire’, [NB: it repeats Article No. 5 in the list of five] each crafted in the immediate aftermath of the brutal Pahalgam terror attack, reflects a deeply disturbing pattern of editorial conduct that borders on strategic subversion under the guise of dissent. Rather than reinforcing national unity during a grave external assault, these writings … systematically erode the credibility of India’s armed forces, question the legitimacy of its sovereign responses, amplify hostile narratives without verification, and insidiously equate counterterror operations with communal or electoral motives. Most alarming is the readiness with which the platform gives currency to unverified claims, such as the alleged downing of a Rafale jet by Pakistan, without any official confirmation, thereby feeding external propaganda machines. At a time when national cohesion is paramount, such publications not only compromise public confidence and operational secrecy but also risk provoking unrest, endangering lives, and undermining India’s international standing. Freedom of expression does not extend to the deliberate corrosion of constitutional institutions during national emergencies, and such conduct may well fall within the threshold of offences against the State under both Penal and Constitutional Jurisprudence.
What the FIR ignores:
Article 6 debates the pros and cons of different military strategies in the aftermath of Pahalgam, a debate that raged in the oped columns of all newspapers at the time, evaluating the ability of Pakistan to prepare itself, the prospects for escalation, de-escalation and the wider political and diplomatic consequences of war at this time – all legitimate topics for analysis. To say that such debates "erode the credibility of India's armed forces" is laughable. That the Indian Muslim is often turned into a proxy for Pakistan is well-known, and that ruling party politicians are particularly prone to do this is no secret. It is futile to pretend that such leaders do not have "communal motives". One such leader called "all Muslims terrorists" barely two months before Pahalgam. And the Modi government has a senior minister who regularly says India's Muslims should be sent to Pakistan.
Article 7 discusses the need to address issues faced by Kashmiris, especially at a time when they had come out in solidarity with the tourists brutally attacked in Pahalgam, instead of criminalising vast groups of people. Creating conditions to restore normalcy in the state is the best way to defeat Pakistan’s plans, it says. Both those articles spoke of ways in which to create a more unified India.
Article 8 cited a French intelligence official about the downing of an Indian Rafale. The article was based entirely on what was reported by CNN; it contained no opinions or analyses. The suggestion that this "compromised public confidence" and "operational secrecy" and that this is "undermining India's international standing" is bizarre.
Article 9 does not lead to any specific work on The Wire's website.
Date: April 24, 2025
Author: Harish Khare, former Editor of The Tribune, former Media Adviser to the Prime Minister of India
Date: April 26, 2025
Author: Nirmanyu Chouhan, researcher
Date: May 2, 2025
Author: Sanjiv Krishna Sood, former additional director general, BSF
What the FIR says about articles No. 10-12:
“deliberately conflate the State’s legitimate national security response with communal bias, all while ignoring the sectarian nature of the attack where victims were singled out based on religion...
What the FIR ignores:
These articles duly note the singling out of victims on the basis of religion and question and criticise those who used an external war to try and create internal discord in India and pit communities against each other – particularly those on TV channels and social media who vilified an entire community in front of their large audiences. The FIR conveniently ignores the fact that there was a surge in anti-Muslim hate speech across India following Pahalgam. In Maharashtra a BJP minister said, "They asked our religion before killing us. So, Hindus must also ask about their religion before buying anything." This is the context in which these articles sought to emphasise the danger to India that this hate-mongering poses and why the government has a responsibility to counter it.
Date: April 25, 2025
Author: Rahul Bedi, senior defence journalist
What the FIR says about this article:
“Equally disturbing is the insinuation in articles like “Pahalgam Exposes Deep Fault Lines in India’s Security Apparatus” that national defence failures stem not from terrorism, but from political motives, thereby eroding confidence in core institutions.”
What the FIR ignores:
The government itself has acknowledged a security lapse in Pahalgam. This article brings to readers the context in which this occurred, and previous instances that the should have served as a learning for security agencies. No "political motives" are spoken of in this article.
General observations which the FIR makes at the end:
“The most egregious and constitutionally alarming instances are found in the unverified glorification of foreign enemy propaganda (e.g., claims of a downed Rafale by Pakistan), the suggestion that India teeters on the brink of civil war, and the invocation of historically charged phrases such as “final solution” in contemporary media critiques, terms that evoke the darkest chapters of global genocides. These cannot be excused as journalism in the public interest they are designed narratives aimed at undermining India’s unity, stoking communal disharmony, and weakening institutional trust during a national crisis. Freedom of expression is not a license for the intellectual legitimisation of enemy objectives or internal destabilisation, particularly when the nation is bleeding. Such conduct warrants strict constitutional scrutiny and, where appropriate, invocation of the penal framework to safeguard the sovereignty and integrity of the Republic. Given the grave implications of the above publications in provoking unrest, undermining national security, and spreading narratives aligned with hostile interests, Hence the case.”
What the FIR ignores:
- Senior Indian military officials including the Chief of Defence Staff have acknowledged the loss of Indian aircraft. At no stage did India ever officially deny claims that it had lost aircraft. The suggestion that the mere reporting of a claim endangers the sovereignty and integrity of the Republic is a gross insult to the armed forces.
- The article which speaks of the danger of civil war actually says that it is "the avalanche of angry traffic in community WhatsApp groups—baying for vengeance and retribution in response to the massacre at Pahalgam" and calling for the boycott of Muslims that raises the threat of a civil war on Hindu-Muslim lines, that the country's leadership needs to oppose these calls, and that we should not "allow Pakistan to provoke us" into such a civil war.
- The article which used the phrase 'final solution' was actually quoting, and criticising, a TV anchor for having used the phrase. "The final solution can only come by refusing to legitimise communal hate. We can ensure that “never again” is not just a hollow slogan, but a lived reality for every citizen," it says.
- Far from "stoking communal disharmony", these articles criticise those who are doing the actual stoking and urges the government to strengthen national unity by acting against them.
- Far from "weakening institutional trust during a national crisis", one of the impugned articles raised legitimate concerns in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terrorist attack – concerns that the survivors, security officials, politicians and the wider public raised and which were aimed at strengthening India's institutional preparedness and response to the kind of terrorism that has repeatedly wreaked havoc in the country.
- The "internal destabilisation" and "enemy objectives" that the FIR sees comes not from these articles but from the actions of politicians and communal fanatics which these articles strongly criticise.
Timeline of the Assam police’s cases against The Wire
| Date | Event |
| May 9 | First FIR (03/2025) registered by Crime Branch, Guwahati, against Siddharth Varadarajan and Karan Thapar under Section 152 BNS. It lists 14 interviews/articles as against the sovereignty and integrity of India but does not explicitly name the authors (including A.S. Dulat, Avinash Mohananey, S.K. Sood, Ajai Shukla, Ali Ahmed, Manoj Joshi, Rahul Bedi, Anand Sahay, Harish Khare, Rohit Kumar, Nirmanyu Chouhan). |
| May 9-Aug 12 | Crime Branch FIR kept in cold storage. |
| July 11 | Morigaon PS registers another FIR under Section 152 against Siddharth Varadarajan and The Wire, for a June 28 story about the Indian defence attaché’s statement on aircraft loss in Operation Sindoor. |
| Aug 12 | Supreme Court gives The Wire protection from coercive action in the July 11 FIR of Morigaon PS. |
| Aug 12 | Guwahati Crime Branch revives its May 9 FIR; summons sent to Siddharth Varadarajan and Karan Thapar. |
| Aug 22 | Supreme Court grants protection from arrest to Siddharth Varadarajan, Karan Thapar, and The Wire’s journalists in the Crime Branch FIR. Court directs Siddharth Varadarajan and Karan Thapar to join investigation and report back. Justice Surya Kant remarks, “We are watching,” after concerns of further FIRs/arrest threats were raised by Nitya Ramakrishnan. |
| Sept 15 | Next date of hearing. |
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.