Not Even A Semblance Of Ingredient In Complaint: Karnataka HC While Quashing FIR Against JP Nadda & Amit Malviya

The Apex Court has highlighted in its ruling in Javed Ahmad Hajam’s Case (Supra) that the police machinery needs to be enlightened and educated about the concept of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the extent of reasonable restraint on free speech and expression.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna said, “There is not even a semblance of ingredient in the complaint to what the Apex Court has held in the aforesaid cases.”

Advocate Vinod Kumar M. represented the Petitioners while Additional Special Public Prosecutor B.N.Jagadeesha represented the Respondents.

The Petitioners had approached the High Court Court calling in question the registration of a case against them under Sections 505(2), 504, 153A, 171C, 171F, 171G of IPC, Section 125 of the Representation of People Act and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2008.

Both the accused persons-petitioners were, at the relevant point in time, the office bearers of the political organization. It was the allegation of the respondent/complainant that on May 5,2024 in the Instagram official account of Bharatiya Janata Party operated by the second petitioner, a post came which was derogatory and which might have hurt the religious sentiments of a particular community. In the said video post, which sought support of Indians to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and contained animated images of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, it was stated, “if Congress Party Comes to Power it will snatch Wealth of all Non Muslims and distribute to Muslims their Favourite Community.”

It was the case of the Petitioners that the post that was on the Instagram account of the political unit did not make out any ingredient of the offence punishable under Sections 505(2), 153A IPC or 125 of the Representation of People's Act. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Javed Ahmad Hajam V. State of Maharashtra (2024) to buttress the submission for quashing of the proceedings.

The Additional State Public Prosecutor vehemently refuted the submissions contending that what was posted on Instagram did amount to the ingredients of section 505(2) of the IPC.

The High Court placed heavy reliance on Javed Ahmad Hajam’s Case (Supra) wherein it was explained that Section 153-A, clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 153-AIPC is attracted when by words, either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, an attempt is made to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities. The promotion of disharmony, enmity, hatred or ill will must be on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste, community or any other analogous grounds. Clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 153-A IPC will apply only when an act is committed which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity.

It was also observed by the Apex Court that the Constitution of India, under Article 19(1)(a), guarantees freedom of speech and expression. Under the said guarantee, every citizen has the right to offer criticism of every decision of the State. He has the right to say he is unhappy with any decision of the State. In this case, clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 153-A IPC wasn’t attracted as what was depicted on the WhatsApp status of the appellant couldn’t be said to be prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony among various groups as stated therein.

Reference was also made to a subsequent judgment in Shiv Prasad Semwal V. State of Uttarakhand (2024) wherein the foundational facts essential to constitute the offence under Section 153-A IPC were found to be lacking as the controversial lines only referred to the complainant, imputing that his activities were prejudicial. Those words had no connection whatsoever with a group or groups of people or communities.

Finding that no ingredient mentioned in the Apex Court Judgments was found in the complaint, the Bench said, “As such, if the crime is permitted to be continued against the petitioners, it would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.”

Thus, allowing the petition, the Bench quashed the proceedings against the Petitioners.

Cause Title: Sri Jagat Prakash Nadda v. State Of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:51624)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocate Vinod Kumar M.

Respondents: Additional Special Public Prosecutor B.N. Jagadeesha

Click here to read/download Order