The Karnataka High Court on Friday orally observed that even though Indians often accuse others of racism and apartheid, they form one of the most racist societies in the world [Sudhir Chaudhury v. State of Karnataka, and a connected case].

Justice MI Arun noted that this was the reason why community-based politics and appeasement policies are common in India.

"The problem with Indian society - all communities included – is we don’t understand that there is (only one) animal species called homo sapiens ... We are one of the most racist societies in the world. We accuse others of racism, apartheid, and all that. (But) we are one of the most racist societies in the whole world. We feel, each community is an animal species by itself, and there has to be discrimination based on community. This is our mentality. That is the reason, in politics, when seats are given, the community of the candidate is given more importance than any other thing. Community of the candidate, most of the time weighs more than fifty per cent than other things, when seat is given ... Tell me, which political party says, 'I believe in Article 14, 19 (1)(a) and 21' and contests elections?" he remarked.

The judge added,

“We say politicians are corrupt and criminal. I will tell you, in democracy, you get the leaders you deserve."

The judge went on to observe that while British colonisation may be over, India is now witnessing new forms of colonisation through big corporates.

"Few thousand British security guards – East India Company security guards – colonised us because we never had the concept of Indianness. The moment we got the concept of Indianness, the British went out. Now this is the era of neo-colonisation, through companies and other corporate sectors. That’s because again, we are going back to our old habits where we refuse to look at a human being as a human being," he said.

He observed that appeasement politics is linked to easy human beings can be influenced, and noted that religion is unfortunately one of the easiest ways to influence the masses.

"The problem is appeasement ... Human beings are human beings. Unfortunately, we are influenced by ideologies. And one of the greatest ideologies is religion. Many amongst us are vegetarians primarily because our religion says so. (Some may not eat beef, others may not eat pork because religion says so). As long as these practices do not trouble others, it is fine," he said.

He also noted that societies have progressed not because of religion, but because of law and scientific temperament.

"It is the rule of law and science and technology. It is rationality, scientific temperament, which has led to the development of society, not your religious beliefs. But political parties are appeasing common man (on the basis of) religion," he observed.

The judge made these remarks while hearing pleas by Aaj Tak and its anchor Sudhir Chaudhary to quash a hate speech case filed against them in 2023 for allegedly broadcasting false news about the Karnataka government’s Swawalambi Sarathi scheme.

The judge yesterday questioned the State as to whether there was any truth to the news report aired on the Aaj Tak channel that the scheme amounted to appeasement politics by the present Congress-led State government, since Hindus were deprived of the incentives given by this scheme.

The State's counsel maintained that the show demonised one community (referring to the Muslim community) and incited hatred against it. He urged the Court to allow the investigation against the accused channel and anchor to continue.

Justice Arun, however, made it clear that the Court may grant relief to the accused channel and anchor if the State is not able to show that the Aaj Tak show contained clear falsehoods.

"If the news report speaks falsehood, then in that event, the petition is liable to be dismissed. If the news report is an analysis of the policy and while analysing it, if they have said that the policy of the State is such that it appeases one section of society by naming that particular section by way of religion or whatever, then the petition will have to be allowed ... It may be inflammatory, but whether it is the truth or whether it is falsehood. If it is falsehood, (show the court) what is the falsehood," Justice Arun told the State's counsel.

The Court's interim order noted,

"Though the respondents together submit that the news item consists of inflammatory materials, on the face of it, they are not in a position to show the falsehood in the statements made by the petitioner-news channel."

The matter will be heard next on January 13, 2026. The interim protection earlier given to the news channel and Chaudhary to prevent any coercive action against them will continue until then.