The Karnataka High Court granted BJP MP Tejasvi Surya an interim stay on investigations concerning his alleged spreading of fake news linked to a farmer’s suicide. The court acknowledged Surya’s parliamentary status and arguments regarding his tweet, which he later deleted. The case will be revisited on December 4, reflecting the complexities of free speech and social impact.
Karnataka: On Thursday (Nov 14th), the Karnataka High Court issued an interim stay on the investigation against BJP MP Tejasvi Surya, who was accused of spreading fake news in connection with the suicide of a farmer in Karnataka’s Haveri district. Justice M. Nagaprasanna granted the stay after hearing a petition by Surya, who sought to quash the FIR registered by Haveri police following his controversial social media post.
“The Petitioner is a parliamentarian,”
the Court noted, adding that Surya’s counsel argued that “the tweet was deleted,” and referenced an interview with the farmer’s father that allegedly supported Surya’s position.
Read Also: “Avoid Adding Fuel to Fire”: Madras High Court on Matrimonial Disputes
Surya’s counsel, Senior Advocate Aruna Shyam, contended that the tweet did not constitute an offence under Section 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) according to the Supreme Court’s interpretation. Based on this reasoning, Justice Nagaprasanna stayed the FIR and all related proceedings against Surya until December 4, the next scheduled hearing.
Surya’s original post claimed,
“A farmer in Haveri commits suicide after finding his land taken over by Waqf! In their haste to appease minorities, CM Siddaramaiah and Minister B.Z. Zameer Ahmed Khan have unleashed catastrophic effects in Karnataka that are becoming impossible to contain with every passing day.”
Shyam stated that Surya based his post on a “news report” but quickly deleted it after learning that the farmer’s death was linked to debts from two years prior and not a recent land dispute.
The Karnataka State government, however, opposed Surya’s plea, asserting that the post could be construed as “promoting enmity between two groups” and negatively impacting social harmony. The government’s counsel argued that the Court should examine the social implications of such posts and whether they amount to incitement.
Justice Nagaprasanna, reflecting on the case, questioned whether filing the FIR was the appropriate response.
“Is what is happening also correct?”
he asked, noting that “every action has an equal and opposite reaction.” This observation suggests a need for careful consideration in handling speech that could affect social harmony without necessarily crossing into criminal conduct.
The case remains pending, with the High Court set to continue deliberations on December 4. This interim order highlights the ongoing balance between free expression and social responsibility in cases involving public figures and sensitive issues.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
