Karnataka BJP's Animated Video Case: High Court Exempts Personal Appearance Of JP Nadda, Amit Malviya In Probe Over 'Promoting Enmity'

The Karnataka High Court on Friday granted interim relief to Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) National President J P Nadda and BJP IT Cell head Amit Malaviya, in connection with an FIR registered over an allegedly offensive animated video was posted on X (formerly Twitter), by the party's Karnataka Unit on alleged Muslim appeasement by the State Congress.

A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit said “Investigation is permitted to go on in its usual course, subject to the rider that the personal presence of the petitioner shall not be insisted upon by the investigating agency.” The court also issued notice to the respondents.

The complaint was lodged against the petitioners on 05-05-2024, by one Ramesh Babu. The case was registered under Sections 125 of the Representation of People Act and Section 505 (2) of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly promoting hatred, enmity between religious communities.

The petitioners claimed that their role was not at all found in the alleged offence and that they have been implicated only on the ground that they are the National President and National Social Media in charge of BJP respectively.

It was stated that merely because they are the national heads of the BJP, it does not mean that they have played an active role in each alleged post on social media in each and every state.

Further, it was submitted that for the same cause of action, the Karnataka Police had registered one more FIR at Malleshwaram police station. Therefore the said act of the state is hit by the direction of the Apex court in the case of TT Anthony Versus State of Kerala, which states that there should not be two FIRs for the same cause of action, it was argued.

It was stated that even if it is assumed that there is a video posted containing an alleged violation of the model code of conduct, only the concerned branch of the said state unit takes care and responsibility for the said act and the petitioner in his capacity as National President is not responsible.

It was submitted that it was practically impossible for a human being to monitor the day-to-day affairs of each and every unit of each and every state. Therefore the implication of the petitioner in the alleged offence was an abuse of process of law.

Further, it was said that no member from the religious communities mentioned in the complaint had filed any complaint after the release of the video and no act of ill will, enmity or hatred was promoted and or happened between the two communities or class of people which is a requirement for Section 505 (2) of IPC.

Accordingly, the petitioners sought quashing of the FIR registered with the High Grounds Police station. By way of interim relief, they sought to stay further investigation in the case.

Case Title: J P Nadda & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: WP 14460/2024.