Supreme Court Stays HC Judgment Which Refused To Quash Case Against Person For Calling Congress President Kharge 'Ayogya'
The Supreme on Friday (October 18) stayed the operation of the Karnataka High Court judgment which allowed investigation against a person accused of calling the President of All India Congress Committee (AICC) Mallikarjun Kharge as 'Ayogya'. The bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Pankaj Mithal passed the interim order while issuing notice on the petitioner's special leave petiton.The...
The Supreme on Friday (October 18) stayed the operation of the Karnataka High Court judgment which allowed investigation against a person accused of calling the President of All India Congress Committee (AICC) Mallikarjun Kharge as 'Ayogya'.
The bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Pankaj Mithal passed the interim order while issuing notice on the petitioner's special leave petiton.
The High Court had in its order quashed the charges under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act u/s 3(2)(v-a) but dismissed the challenge against offences under Sections S.153-A, 153-B, 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court allowed the investigation to continue with respect to these offences.
The genesis of the incident is rooted to a speech given by the petitioner at Siravara, Raichur, Karnataka, where he used the term 'Ayogya' for Kharge. Subsequently, the complainant in the FIR registered stated that the term was used to incite hatred, violence towards the caste of the victim and to create a false image of him as a cheater. The complainant is the President of the District Congress Committee.
The High Court in its decision observed that the possibility of instigating and offending the sentiments of the followers or fans of the Congress Party cannot be overlooked at the present stage. The test applied was to assess the words from the lens of a reasonable, strong-minded individuals and "not those of weak and vacillating minds and nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of view".
Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner mainly contended that (1) the High Court wrongly interpreted the term 'Ayogya' to mean 'rascal' as "one of the closest meaning is 'worthless'" and (2) the impugned order failed to discusses the ingredients of Sections 153-A, 153-B and 505 of the Indian Penal Code
Appearances for petitioner : Aruna Shyam, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash, AOR Mr. Suyog Herele, Adv. Ms. Anisha Agarwal, Adv
Case Details : MITHUN CHAKRAVARTY DEVIDAS SHET vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Diary No. - 46413/2024
Click Here To Read/Download Order