Today, On 25th April, Karnataka High Court strongly criticized election speeches as ‘abysmal’ in the context of the DK Shivakumar case. The court’s remarks highlight concerns about the declining standards of political discourse. This criticism comes amidst growing scrutiny of political language during election campaigns.
Karnataka: The Karnataka High Court granted interim relief to Deputy Chief Minister and Congress leader DK Shivakumar, who facing accusations of breaching the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) during his campaign activities for the forthcoming Lok Sabha elections. The interim order issued by Justice Krishna S Dixit, who instructed relevant authorities to pause any further proceedings against Shivakumar until the subsequent hearing of his case.
Shivakumar filed a petition contesting the validity of the First Information Report (FIR) that registered against him regarding these allegations. This decision by the High Court provides Shivakumar with temporary legal respite while the investigates further into the merits of the case in future proceedings.
Read Also:‘Notice to 44 Government Bodies’ by Karnataka HC
As they dictated the order earlier, the judge stated,
“The petitioner, Shivakumar, should be granted relief until the next hearing date. The first and second respondents, Karnataka Police and Flying Squad official, are instructed to avoid escalating the situation. The presiding magistrate is urged to refrain from hastening the proceedings. Likewise, the first respondent is directed to avoid hastening the matter until the next hearing,”
According to recent reports, a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against DK Shivakumar on April 19, following a complaint by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to the Election Commission of India (ECI). The BJP accused Shivakumar of attempting to coerce voters by promising benefits such as Cauvery water supply and the issuance of occupancy certificates in return for their votes in the upcoming Lok Sabha elections. These allegations stem from a speech Shivakumar allegedly delivered to apartment residents in RR Nagara, where he campaigning for his brother, DK Suresh, a candidate in the Lok Sabha elections.
The Karnataka High Court, however, expressed doubt about the relevance of the charges filed under Sections 171B (bribery) and 171C (undue influence at elections) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court’s hesitation suggests a need for a deeper examination of whether Shivakumar’s remarks during the campaign fall squarely within the legal definitions of bribery and undue influence, particularly in the context of election law.
This judicial scrutiny indicates a critical look at the legal boundaries of campaign promises and their impact on electoral integrity.
Justice Krishna S Dixit of the Karnataka High Court expressed reservations regarding the adequacy of the charges under Sections 171B and 171C of the IPC against DK Shivakumar.
The Court noted,
“I am of the considered opinion that the matter requires deeper consideration, particularly in view of the scope and parameters of charging Section 171B and 171C of the IPC. I am also not that sure whether the utterances that the petitioner (Shivakumar) is stated to have made would strictly fit the parameters of the charging sections,”
Additionally, Justice Dixit advised caution to Shivakumar’s counsel, emphasizing the need for careful language in political speeches to avoid legal complications.
He stated,
“You have to advise your client (Shivakumar) to be careful in employing language, otherwise these things will happen,”
The Court also questioned the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) handling of the timeline for Shivakumar to respond to a notice issued on April 16, which served to him on April 17. The ECI’s counsel explained that their understanding, that they did not need to wait more than 24 hours after serving the notice before proceeding with the criminal case. However, the judge expressed doubts about whether Shivakumar given a reasonable opportunity to explain his actions, referencing the EP Royappa case to highlight the necessity for state actions to be reasonable and just.
Justice Dixit remarked,
“There has to be reasonable time. What EP Royappa case said? Every action of the State must be reasonable and just. We are not the East India Company, we are not colonial powers. We are a welfare State,”
The Court remarked,
“Today’s election speeches standards are dismal,”
During the proceedings in which DK Shivakumar granted interim relief, the Karnataka High Court also offered a critical reflection on the nature of contemporary election speeches.
Justice Dixit remarked on the quality of current election speeches, observing that they have become “abysmally low” and questioned whether it was even possible for the standards to decline further.
Read Also:‘Election Manifesto Promises Not Considered Corrupt Practice’: Karnataka HC
The High Court noted in its order,
“This Court notices that the language, both in terms of quality, content, and presentation, during election campaigns nowadays has fallen abysmally low and it is not sure whether it can still go lower, there being no scope for that,”
Furthermore, the Court documented an assurance from Shivakumar’s counsel that the Congress leader has been advised to be more cautious in his future public remarks, indicating a move towards improving the quality of political dialogue.