Advocate MP Tejasvi Surya appears for law student; secures stay from Karnataka High Court on tweet over Bantwal murder

The Karnataka High Court on Monday stayed the investigation into two criminal cases registered against a sixth-semester law student over a tweet on X concerning the recent murder of a young woman at Bantwal bus stand [Kiran R @ Kiran Aradhya Vs State of Karnataka].

Justice M Nagaprasanna held that the tweet did not prima facie disclose ingredients of hate speech offences.

The order recorded that the State attempted to infer that the tweet projected a particular community, although nothing in the tweet expressly referred to any religion, group or community.

The Court held that if there had been even a semblance of material indicating promotion of hatred or enmity attracting offences akin to Section 153A IPC or Section 505(2) BNS, it would have permitted the investigation to continue.

"If it were to be a real activity that could bring in enmity, I would not have heard him at all," the Court orally observed.

Advocate and Bharatiya Janata Party MP Tejasvi Surya appeared for the accused law student.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by accused Kiran R alias Kiran Aradhya challenging FIRs registered at Bantwal and Bengaluru over a tweet posted by him.

Advocate LS Tejasvi Surya, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the principal FIR was invoked Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) on the basis of a tweet which merely stated,

"Monster. With wristband on his left hand, pants above his ankles killed a girl at Bantwal bus stand, Karnataka. He probably knows that even if they arrest him, Congress will quietly withdraw the case... Just hope the RSS gets registered soon."

Surya submitted that the complainant himself admitted in both the complaint and FIR that the tweet did not name or refer to any religious community.

He argued that despite this admission, the FIR had been registered and the criminal process itself was being used as punishment.

He also claimed that there was an emerging pattern of criminal cases being registered against persons expressing opinions on public platforms. He further referred to earlier instances where criminal cases had been withdrawn by the State government, noting that a Division Bench of the High Court had already held such withdrawals to be illegal.

Advocate Girish Bharadwaj, also appearing for the petitioner, submitted that another FIR had been registered at High Grounds Police Station in Bengaluru under Section 192 BNS based on the same tweet on the ground that it damaged the image of the ruling political party.

He argued that the petitioner was merely a sixth-semester law student facing multiple criminal proceedings over a solitary social media post.

Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) BN Jagadeesha, appearing for the State, argued that the FIRs had been registered only two days earlier and the petitioners had approached the High Court even before the investigation could meaningfully commence.

He submitted that the murder had occurred in a communally sensitive coastal region and that social media posts of this nature had the potential to aggravate an already tense atmosphere.

According to the State, the tweet was capable of creating communal discord because, immediately after the murder, messages had circulated claiming that a Muslim man had killed a Hindu woman.

SPP went on to refer to previous incidents of mob violence in the region and submitted that the Supreme Court had directed States to monitor hate speech and social media following such incidents.

He contended that the police were merely investigating and had not even issued notice to the petitioner.

"We have registered an FIR. We may file a B-report if there is no case," the SPP submitted, arguing that the petitioners could not claim to be aggrieved merely because an FIR had been registered.

However, Justice Nagaprasanna repeatedly questioned the State on how the tweet attracted offences relating to promoting enmity between communities.

"Nobody is speaking... Everybody sympathizes with that. It is an unfortunate incident that has happened. That's a different angle," the Court observed.

Referring to the contents of the tweet, the judge asked:

"What could be the video? Only that incident? This is not where he's wanting to glorify that incident or celebrating that incident."

The Court added that if the investigating agency believed such offences were attracted, it should register a case only for offences actually made out from the contents of the post.

"You register an FIR on things that have to be registered and not on that. Now you have to investigate who is that person who killed and walked away and not attack this fellow who has tweeted something."

The judge also noted that if the tweet had actually generated law and order problems, that would be a different matter.

The Bench remarked that the investigation ought to focus on the murder itself rather than the social media post.

"Investigate into that man who has hacked her to death. That is more important. Leaving that, you are behind the person who tweeted."

The Court observed that the petitioner was facing multiple criminal proceedings arising from a single tweet.

The Court noted that the tweet referred to the unfortunate incident of a man allegedly hacking a woman to death in broad daylight and commented on the possibility of withdrawal of criminal cases by the government—a matter which, according to the petitioners, had already been the subject of judicial scrutiny.

In light of the above, the Court issued notice to the State and stayed further investigation against the petitioner in both FIRs till the next date of hearing.

The case will be heard next on August 7.