All news
Karnataka High Court Quashes Pakistan Zindabad Case From BJP Protest Over Delay And Missing Sanction
News2 min read

Karnataka High Court Quashes Pakistan Zindabad Case From BJP Protest Over Delay And Missing Sanction

L

LawWorld

Justice V. Srishananda of the Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings against D.S. Ravi Kumar over the allegation he shouted "Pakistan Zindabad" at a BJP-organised protest in Mandya on December 18, 2022.

Police had booked the case under Sections 153B and 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code, provisions now carried as Section 197 and Section 353(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and often discussed in hate speech case law in India.

Two-year gap, YouTube clip flagged

It was "highly unimaginable", the bench said, that a person attending a demonstration organised by the BJP would raise a slogan in praise of Pakistan.

According to the order, the petitioner argued the cry heard as "Zindabad" may have been "Murdabad" shouted with other slogans at the venue.

Inadvertence was accepted as a possible explanation — the word could have slipped out instead of the protest cry directed against Pakistan.

About two years separated the protest date from the start of the criminal case, the bench found on examining the timing of the complaint.

No report was made at the time of the demonstration; the complaint rested entirely on a clip uploaded on YouTube.

That long silence, followed by reliance on video material, weakened the prosecution's claim, the court said.

Sanction missing under Section 196

Prior government sanction was required under Section 196(1)(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before taking cognisance of the charge under Section 505 of the Indian Penal Code, the order said.

No such sanction had been obtained before proceedings were started against the petitioner, the bench noted.

Section 217(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 now contains the same safeguard, the court recorded.

Factual doubt, delayed complaint and missing sanction together meant continuation of the prosecution was not justified.

Pending proceedings against the petitioner under the stated provisions stand quashed and he will face no trial on that allegation.