'Satire Protected Under Article 19' : Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Over College Skit Allegedly Insulting Ambedkar & Dalits
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a case registered against students and faculty members of the Jain Centre of Management Studies (Deemed University) who were booked for staging a skit that allegedly referred to Dr B R Ambedkar and Dalits in a derogatory manner. Justice S R Krishna Kumar allowed the petitions filed by Dinesh Nilkant Borkar and others and quashed the prosecution...
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a case registered against students and faculty members of the Jain Centre of Management Studies (Deemed University) who were booked for staging a skit that allegedly referred to Dr B R Ambedkar and Dalits in a derogatory manner.
Justice S R Krishna Kumar allowed the petitions filed by Dinesh Nilkant Borkar and others and quashed the prosecution initiated against them.
It said, “The skit/short play performed by the petitioner was in the nature of satire/entertainment, which is constitutionally protected under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression and the impugned FIR clearly does not meet or satisfy the basic ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner.”
The University had organized the Jain University Youth Fest-2023 at NIMHANS Convention Centre, in which, the students presented many programmes, amongst which, the petitioners – students enacted a skit / short play .
The police had registered a case under sections 153-A, 149 and 295-A IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) and (v) of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
On going through the records the bench said, “The impugned FIR has not been lodged by a person who is the member of the SC/ST community and there is no material to indicate that the petitioners had any specific intention to insult or intimidate with an intent to humiliate a member of SC/ST community in any place within a public view.”
The Court perused the complaint, FIR as well as the transcript of the short play/skit, and said that it was sufficient to "come to the conclusion that the necessary ingredients constituting the offences are conspicuously absent, especially when the said skit/short play was done for mere/sheer entertainment purposes and not with any intention to harm or humiliate any community or race nor make any reference to a particular religion or religious belief.”
The bench referred to decisions of the Apex Court and HC and held “I am of the view that continuation of the impugned proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.”
Appearance: Senior Advocate S.Sriranga for Advocate Sumana Naganand for Petitioners.
Additional SPP Rashmi Jadhav for R1.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 82
Case Title: Dinesh Borkar & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2845 OF 2023 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2064 OF 2023.
