Karnataka HC.
Credit: DH Photo
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Friday permitted investigation to go on against BJP national president and Union Minister Jagat Prakash Nadda and party's IT cell head Amit Malviya in relation to a hate speech case registered at the CEN police station in Kalaburagi.
Justice Krishna S Dixit passed this interim order and also exempted both Nadda and Malviya from personal appearance before the investigation agency.
On May 5, 2024, one Praveenkumar Patil from Jewargi had filed the complaint about a video posted on the BJPs social media handles with caption #AbkiBaar400Paar.
The video stated that ‘If Congress Party Comes to Power it will snatch Wealth of all Non Muslims and distribute to Muslims, their favourite community.’
This was with an animated image of former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh attributing to him the statement that ‘Muslims must have first claim of the resources’.
The video further stated that ancient India was looted by a community (Muslims) time and again and that they are being empowered by Congress party and that ‘Congress Party manifesto is nothing but Muslim League manifesto.’
The police had registered an FIR under IPC sections 153A, 171C, 171F, 171G, 504 and 505 and section 125 of the Representation of Peoples Act. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners, Nadda and Malaviya, that they have been falsely implicated solely on the ground of the positions held by them in the BJP.
They also claimed that the complainant is an active member of the Congress party and hence the case is registered with a political motive.
It was contended that their argument is prima facie covered in the Apex Court decision in Amish Devgan vs UoI. The counsel for the petitioners pressed for an interim relief of stay on investigation. The SPP opposed the request to stay the investigation saying that ordinarily the probe is not halted by the court.
“In view of the above, the investigation is permitted to go on in its usual course subject to the rider that the personal presence of the petitioner shall not be insisted upon by the state agency,” Justice Krishna S Dixit said.