Today, On 9th July, The Karnataka High Court dismissed a PIL accusing BJP leaders and right-wing activists of hate speech. The court criticized the broad nature of the petition, questioning its appropriateness for a PIL. The dismissal highlights the court’s view on the relevance of such petitions.
Bangalore: The Karnataka High Court, on Tuesday dismissed a comprehensive public interest litigation (PIL) petition that sought action against several Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders and right-wing activists for alleged hate speech.
The petition, filed in 2022, targeted BJP leaders KS Eshwarappa, P Renukacharya, CT Ravi, Pratap Simha, Basanagouda R Patil, Shobha Karandlaje, and Tejasvi Surya. It also included right-wing activists Sulibele Chakravarthy, Pramodh Muthalik (Rashtriya Hindu Sena chief), and Rishi Kumaraswamy.
Read Also: EXCLUSIVE| Supreme Court Extends Stay in ‘Hate Speech Case’ Against TN BJP Chief
Advocate Mohamad Anwar, representing the petitioner, argued that these individuals were attempting to incite disharmony between religious communities.
However, the Bench, comprising Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Justice KV Aravind, dismissed the petition, citing its omnibus nature and apparent ill intent.
The Court stated,
“On carefully going through the petition, the petition is too general to be countenanced. The allegations lack authentication. Even otherwise, petition of such nature cannot be entertained as a Public Interest Litigation. The filing of the petition smacks of motive other than public interest. The petitions filed in the nature of public interest litigation with political or communal motive cannot be entertained.”
The Court noted that while the petition warranted dismissal with costs, it chose to refrain from imposing any.
During today’s hearing, Chief Justice Anjaria reprimanded the petitioner for inadequately disclosing his credentials and profession.
Chief Justice Anjaria stated,
“We don’t know about your client. Who has drafted the petition? Why are you misusing the High Court platform by filing such petitions? What do you want? You are alleging some hate speech against particular communities. First, you disclose what you are in life, how you are connected with these persons, what is the motive for filing these petitions,”
Nevertheless, the Bench remained unimpressed.
The petitioner’s counsel later revealed that the petitioner, a civil contractor and a social activist.
The Court remarked,
“Civil contractor filed such an uncivil petition .This is total misuse of the court process,”
Due to the broad nature of the allegations, the Court indicated its inclination to dismiss the petition.
The petitioner’s counsel requested the Bench to either adjourn the matter or pass it over due to the unavailability of his senior to argue the case.
The Court rejected this request outright and questioned the basis for filing such a frivolous petition.
Chief Justice Anjaria inquired,
“Why such omnibus petitions, especially in a Public Interest Petition? Is the High Court meant for such petitions? So what do you propose , are you inviting an order or withdrawing?”
Chief Justice Anjaria further noted that if the petitioner felt offended by any statement, he could file a defamation complaint or seek another suitable remedy.
Read Also: Hate Speech Case|| MP Government Informs Supreme Court To Watch on Social Media.
The Chief Justice cautioned,
“We are not concerned with all this; you file a defamation complaint, whatever you want to file. What kind of petition is this? You can’t invoke such a matter for public interest. Are you withdrawing? Last chance,”
Persisting, the lawyer referred to guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Tehseen Poonwalla v. Union of India aimed at curbing fake news, hate speech, and mob lynching.
The Court acknowledged the lawyer’s submission on this aspect in its order before dismissing the petition summarily.