Tweet is Posted, Clarified & Deleted: Karnataka HC Quashes FIR Against BJP MP Tejasvi Surya in Fake News Case
The Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR registered against BJP MP L.S.Tejasvi Surya, who was accused of spreading fake news via his tweet about the death of a farmer following the claim by the Waqf Board upon his land. The High Court observed that the ingredients of Sec.353(2) of BNS were not satisfied in this case.
Surya had approached the High Court calling in question the registration of a Criminal case against him under Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna asserted, “The tweet is posted; tweet is clarified; and tweet is deleted. Therefore, it is ununderstandable as to how the ingredients of Section 353(2) of BNS are met in the case at hand”.
Senior Advocate M.Aruna Shyam represented the Petitioner while Special Public Prosecutor B.A. Belliappa represented the Respondents.
The genesis of this case goes back to September, 2024, when the Revenue Department of Government of Karnataka sought to unilaterally effect changes of farm lands claimed to be belonging to farmers, by inserting the name of the Karnataka Waqf Board, in the revenue records. This action of the Government generated fear and the farmers began protesting against the action of the State Government. In this regard, the petitioner being a Member of Parliament, and also a Member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, undertook a tour throughout the State.
While meeting the affected farmers, the Parlementarian was was apprised of suicide of a farmer’s son by name one Rudrappa in the neighbouring District of Haveri and was informed that the deceased had died due to the claim of the Waqf Board over the land belonging to him. Taking the news as it was heard, the petitioner posted a tweet on his handle on ‘X’ sharing the news article of suicide of Rudrappa following the claim by the Waqf Board upon his land. In response to the said tweet on the very same day, the Superintendent of Police, clarified that the suicide of the deceased was not due to the land claim by the Waqf Board but on account of loan that he had taken on the crop and loss of the crop.
Though the petitioner deleted the tweet but between posting of the clarification by the Superintendent of Police and deletion of the tweet by the petitioner, the news was aired in several electronic media. A criminal case came to be registered against the petitioner.
It was the petitioner’s case that none of the ingredients necessary under Section 353(2) of BNS were present in the case at hand and the crime was deliberately registered, notwithstanding deletion of the tweet once the clarification was issued by the Superintendent of Police.
However, the State Public Prosecutor vehemently refuted these submissions contending that it is a false information that was tweeted by the petitioner. It was submitted that he may have deleted it immediately after the clarification, but nonetheless, since it was also a subject matter of discussion of news in the electronic media, it did attract the ingredients of Section 353(2) of BNS / 505(2) of the earlier regime - the IPC.
The Bench, at the outset, explained that Section 353 is Section 505 of the earlier regime of IPC. Section 353(2) punishes a person who makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing false information, rumour or alarming news, including through electronic means with intent to create or promote disharmony, enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religions with certain exceptions.
As per the Bench the ingredients of Section 353(2) of BNS were not met as the tweet was posted, clarified and deleted.
The Bench also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Shiv Prasad Semwal V. State of Uttarakhand (2024) 7 SCC 555 where further investigation was not permitted and the FIR itself was quashed after finding that the foundational facts essential for constituting the substantive offences under Sections 153-A and 504 IPC were not available from the admitted allegations of prosecution.
“Therefore, in the light of the interpretation of Section 353(2) of BNS / Section 505(2) or even 153A of the IPC as the case would be, by the Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgments, permitting further investigation in the case at hand, when there is nothing to investigate would become an abuse of the process of law”, the Bench clarified.
The High Court also discarded the reliance placed upon by Respondents on the history of the death of Rudrappa and observed that it would not become necessary even to be noticed in the case at hand, as those facts had nothing to do with the present crime.
Thus, exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, the Court allowed the Criminal Petition and quashed the FIR in question.
Cause Title:Shri L.S.tejasvi Surya v. State Of Karnataka & Ors. [Case No. Criminal Petition No.12267 OF 2024]
Appearance:
Petitioner:Senior Advocate M.Aruna Shyam, Advocate Anirudh A.kulkarni,
Respondents:Special Public Prosecutor B.A. Belliappa, Additional Special Public Prosecutor B.N. Jagadeesha