The Karnataka High Court has questioned the State over the deletion of defamation charges from an FIR registered against BJP leader and former Member of Parliament Pratap Simha, exposing a chain of jurisdictional lapses that the State has acknowledged as procedural irregularities.
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, hearing the matter on October 6, 2026, noted that the FIR was initially sent to a court lacking jurisdiction and that the order deleting the defamation charge also came from a Sessions Court without proper jurisdiction. The State's characterization of these irregularities as merely procedural has drawn judicial scrutiny over whether such errors should permit criminal proceedings to continue.
Simha has filed two petitions—CRL.P No. 14747/2026 and CRL.P No. 14769/2026—challenging FIRs registered on September 20 and September 22, 2026, respectively. Both cases stem from an alleged speech by Simha during a Ganesha Visarjan procession on September 18, 2026, at T. Narasipura in Karnataka. The FIRs invoke multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) alongside provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Jurisdictional Questions at the Heart of the Challenge
The High Court's questioning reflects a deeper concern about procedural compliance in criminal proceedings. The fact that both the initial transmission and the subsequent deletion order came from courts without jurisdiction raises fundamental questions about the validity of the process itself. When a court lacks jurisdiction, any order it passes—whether registering an FIR or modifying charges—operates outside its legal authority.
The State's admission that these jurisdictional defects occurred is significant. Rather than contesting the facts, the government has attempted to downplay the matter by labeling it a procedural irregularity. This approach suggests an attempt to move past the jurisdictional violations without addressing the substantive legal problems they create.
Justice Hegde's questioning of the State indicates the High Court is not prepared to accept this characterization without deeper examination. The court appears to be considering whether procedural irregularities of this magnitude—involving jurisdictional failures at multiple stages—should be dismissed as mere technicalities or whether they strike at the root validity of the proceedings.
The Defamation Charge and Its Removal
The deletion of the defamation charge from the FIR is particularly noteworthy. Defamation, as a charge, carries distinct legal elements and consequences compared to other offenses. The removal of this charge by an incompetent court raises questions about who had authority to make such a decision and whether the removal itself was legally valid.
When charges are deleted from an FIR, the decision must typically be made by a competent authority—either through proper police procedures or by an order from a court with jurisdiction. If a court without jurisdiction ordered the deletion, that order itself may be void. This creates a paradoxical situation where the petitioner may be left uncertain about which charges actually stand against him.
The timing of the FIR registration—September 20 and 22, just days after the alleged speech on September 18—also reflects the rapid escalation of the matter. Multiple FIRs for the same incident, registered within days of each other, raise questions about whether the charges were duplicative or whether they covered different alleged statements or conduct.
Criminal Procedure and Judicial Authority
The case touches on fundamental principles of criminal procedure and judicial jurisdiction. The Indian criminal justice system depends on courts exercising power only within their territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction. When this boundary is crossed, the entire proceeding becomes questionable.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which replaced the Indian Penal Code, sets out clear jurisdictional rules for various courts. A Sessions Court, for instance, has jurisdiction over certain categories of offenses but not others. Similarly, different courts have territorial jurisdiction based on where the offense occurred or where the accused resides. When an FIR is sent to a court without jurisdiction, the proper course is to transfer it to the appropriate court, not to proceed with it.
The deletion of charges by a court without jurisdiction compounds the procedural confusion. If the Sessions Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, it equally lacked jurisdiction to modify the charges by deleting the defamation count. This raises the question of whether the deletion order itself is valid or whether the defamation charge remains technically part of the FIR. The implications for criminal procedure extend beyond this single case to how courts at all levels handle jurisdictional boundaries.
The State's Position and the Court's Response
The State's argument that these are mere procedural irregularities not warranting quashing of criminal proceedings represents a common defense strategy. Governments often seek to distinguish between procedural errors and substantive defects, arguing that procedural lapses should not invalidate otherwise legitimate prosecutions.
However, jurisdictional defects are not purely procedural. They go to the root of a court's authority to act. The High Court's questioning suggests skepticism toward this distinction. Justice Hegde's inquiry into the State's position indicates the court is examining whether procedural irregularities that involve jurisdictional failures can truly be separated from the substantive validity of the proceedings.
The State has not yet filed a detailed response to the petitions. The questioning on October 6 appears to be an initial judicial probe into the facts and the State's position. The court's further orders will likely depend on how comprehensively the State can justify the jurisdictional lapses and explain why they should not result in quashing the criminal proceedings.
Next Steps and Pending Consideration
The case remains pending before Justice Hegde. The court's questioning of the State suggests that further hearings are likely. The petitioner's counsel will have an opportunity to argue why the jurisdictional defects are fatal to the proceedings, while the State will need to present a more detailed justification for why the case should continue despite these lapses.
One possible outcome is that the High Court may quash the FIR entirely, finding that the jurisdictional defects are so fundamental that the proceedings cannot be salvaged. Alternatively, the court may direct that the FIR be transferred to the proper court and re-registered with all charges intact. A third possibility is that the court may quash only the defamation charge, accepting that it was improperly deleted, while allowing other charges to proceed.
For Simha, the outcome will determine whether he faces prosecution under the BNS and the Atrocities Act alone, or whether the defamation charge will also be pursued. The decision will clarify the weight given to jurisdictional compliance in criminal proceedings and whether courts will tolerate procedural shortcuts that bypass proper judicial authority.
Comments
Sign in to read the discussion and share your thoughts.