'Wasting the judicial time': Karnataka High Court junks PIL against Rahul Gandhi for remarks berating Prajwal Revanna

Bengaluru: The Karnataka high court dismissed the public interest litigation alleging that Congress leader Rahul Gandhi made objectionable comments during a public speech in 2024 Lok Sabha elections.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Justice KV Aravind dismissed the public interest litigation terming it not only as misconceived but as one amounting to wastage of judicial time. Th Bench also imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on All India Dalit Action Committee, Bengaluru for wasting the judicial time.

The bench, however, issued general advice to the politicians in their public speech.

“As a Constitutional Court, this Court could only expect and hope that decency, decorum would be maintained and the responsible use of language would be employed by the leaders in the political field, who are in public life, in their public speeches and all dispensations. These virtues are an asset for a person in public life. They have become scarce and dear in these days. This court cannot go beyond the above observations" the bench said.

According to the petitioner, Rahul Gandhi’s speech referring to former Hassan MP Prajwal Revanna as ‘rapist’ in Shivamogga threw to the winds the norms of decency. The petitioner also sought a direction to the National Commission for Women, State Commission for Women, the Home Department, the Karnataka State Police, to take action against Rahul Gandhi for his alleged hate speech. 

The petition further sought a direction to  Rahul Gandhi to tender an unconditional apology for his ‘unconstitutional speeches’ and for issuance for publishing a White Paper as well as imposing cost on him.

The bench said that it does not want to go into the merits or demerits of the alleged statements and utterances of Rahul Gandhi. The court also said that it is not for it to assess and opine about public utterances which may be made by political leaders in the course of their public speeches or during the election canvass.

“It is to be observed that the subject matter of the kind and nature as well as type of allegations raised could hardly be for consideration and entertainment in the public interest jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Not only that, the issues and aspects require leading of evidence and appreciation of materials. The other recourse and remedies are available to the petitioner in relation to what is alleged in the petition,” the bench said.