Karnataka HC quashes FIR against BJP's Chalavadi Narayanaswamy, TS Srivatsa over remarks about ST status to Kurubas

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a first information report (FIR) against Karnataka Legislative Council Leader of Opposition T Narayanaswamy alias Chalavadi Narayanaswamy and BJP MLA T S Srivatsa over their statements opposing the proposed grant of Scheduled Tribe (ST) status and reservation to the Kuruba community [T Narayanaswamy @ Chalavadi Narayanaswamy V. State of Karnataka].

By way of an order passed on August 20, Justice M Nagaprasanna held that the allegations in the complaint, even if taken at face value, did not disclose the ingredients of an offence under Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The Court noted that the petitioners had merely opposed the proposed reservation and held that such opposition, by itself, could not constitute an offence under the provision.

"Talks that were going on at that point in time, this by itself would not make an offence under Section 353(2) of the BNS / Section 505 of the IPC" the Court said.

The case arose from allegations that Narayanaswamy and Srivatsa had made statements opposing the demand for ST status and reservation for the Kuruba community.

According to the prosecution, Narayanaswamy had made the statements from his office, while Srivatsa had made statements in Mysuru and subsequently posted them on social media. It was alleged that while opposing the reservation demand, the BJP leaders had also made statements against the Chief Minister and humiliated members of the Kuruba community.

The High Court examined the ingredients of the alleged offence in the light of the Supreme Court's judgments dealing with criminalisation of speech.

The bench noted that mens rea is an essential ingredient for an offence relating to promotion of enmity and that allegedly objectionable words have to be assessed in their entirety and in the context in which they were made.

The Court also rejected the contention that an FIR cannot be quashed merely because the investigation is at a nascent stage.

It observed that where the allegations, even if accepted on their face, do not disclose the commission of an offence, the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of law.

In the present case, the Court found that the basic ingredient required to constitute the alleged offence was absent.

"The Apex Court holds that the basic ingredient of the offence under Sections 353 of the BNS or Sections 505 of the IPC is an attempt to incite people belonging to a community to indulge in any violence being made. This ingredient has also not been met in the present case" the Court held.

The High Court accordingly allowed the criminal petition and quashed the FIR registered by the Vidhana Soudha Police.

Senior Advocate M Aruna Shyam along with advocate Suyog Herele, appeared for the petitioners.

Additional State Public Prosecutor Anoop Kumar appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]