The Karnataka High Court stayed all criminal proceedings initiated against a man who printed a message on his wedding invitation card asking people to vote for Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the 2024 parliamentary elections. On November 11, Justice M Nagaprasanna passed the interim stay order and also issued notice to the Karnataka government and a polling officer, the original complainant in the case, seeking their responses on a quashing petition filed by one Shivaprasad, a resident of Dakshin Kannada district.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court granted an interim stay on all criminal proceedings against Shivaprasad, a resident of Dakshina Kannada district, who included a message in his wedding invitation card encouraging guests to vote for Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the upcoming 2024 parliamentary elections.
This interim relief was granted on November 11 by Justice M Nagaprasanna, who issued a notice to the Karnataka government and a polling officer, seeking their response to a quashing petition filed by Shivaprasad.
Background of the Case
Shivaprasad faced charges under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to-
“disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant,”
as well as under Section 127A of the Representation of the People (RP) Act.
The charges were initiated following a complaint filed by election officer Sandesh KN, who alleged that the message in Shivaprasad’s wedding card violated the code of conduct in place for the 2024 general elections.
The invitation contained the statement-
“Voting for Modi is the gift for my wedding,”
which the complainant argued was in breach of election conduct rules.
Timeline and Grounds of the Petition
In his petition filed through advocate Vinod Kumar, Shivaprasad argued that the wedding invitation cards were printed on March 1, 2024, before the Model Code of Conduct came into effect. The Election Commission only announced the schedule for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections on March 16, 2024.
Shivaprasad further noted that the complaint was filed by the election officer more than a month later, on April 19, 2024.
He contended that his actions were not covered by the RP Act as the Model Code of Conduct was not yet in effect when the cards were printed.
The petitioner also highlighted that the FIR against him and the owner of the printing agency, Balakrishna A, was filed without procedural compliance, alleging that the magistrate’s court granted permission for registration of the FIR without properly examining the case’s facts.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that
“the RP Act is applicable only when the code of conduct is in effect”
and that the FIR was “bad in law” due to the magistrate’s failure to adhere to the provisions outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Court’s Observations and Interim Order
Justice Nagaprasanna considered these arguments and found merit in the petitioner’s plea. The court’s interim order reads:
“Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Learned HCGP is directed to accept notice for the respondents. The petitioners/accused are alleged of a strange offence. The first petitioner prints an invitation card of his own wedding and prints a postscript which read as ‘the gift that you would give me in the marriage is vote for Narendra Modi’. This is said to be an offence under Section 127A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.”
The court further noted that the petitioner’s counsel provided documentary evidence indicating that the invitation was printed well before the election schedule was announced, thus arguing that no violation under Section 127A of the RP Act could be established.
Justice Nagaprasanna observed,
“The learned counsel for the petitioner takes this Court through the documents appended to the petition to demonstrate that the printing of the invitation was long before the declaration of elections even, and therefore, it would not make an offence under Section 127A of the Act, as such acts were required to be done only during the election and not prior to the election. Therefore, there shall be an interim order of stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.238/2024, qua the petitioners, till the next date of hearing.”
Next Steps and Implications
The Karnataka High Court has issued a notice to the State government and the polling officer and has scheduled a further hearing on the matter for December 12, 2024. Until then, all proceedings related to the case have been temporarily halted.
Shivaprasad’s case brings to the forefront the issue of interpreting election-related regulations and the scope of the RP Act outside active election periods.
His counsel’s argument underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements when initiating criminal proceedings, especially when electoral codes of conduct are involved.
The High Court’s interim stay serves as a reminder of the nuanced application of election law, and the case’s final outcome may set a precedent regarding private expressions of political support in non-political contexts like weddings.
This case continues to generate considerable public interest, reflecting broader debates on the limits of free expression in electoral matters and the enforcement of election conduct regulations.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on PM Modi
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
