On the very day that a hate speech case was registered against Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) leader Kalladka Prabhakar Bhat, the Karnataka High Court granted him interim relief by restraining the police from taking any “coercive action” against him.
The Bantwal Rural police in Dakshina Kannada district had filed the case suo motu on Monday, June 2, accusing Prabhakar Bhat of making inflammatory remarks against Muslims during an event held on May 12.
The FIR was registered under Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which pertains to statements containing false information that could promote enmity between groups on the basis of religion, race, language, and other grounds. The offence is punishable with imprisonment of up to three years, a fine, or both.
Soon after the FIR was filed, Prabhakar Bhat had moved the Karnataka High Court seeking its quashing. He also requested a stay on further investigation and all proceedings in the case.
Following this, a single-judge bench of Justice SR Krishna Kumar passed an interim order restraining the police from undertaking any “coercive measures” against Prabhakar Bhat. The court directed that he must cooperate with the investigation and instructed the police to seek the court’s permission to file the chargesheet.
Advocate M Arun Shyam, who appeared for Prabhakar Bhat, argued that there was a malafide intention behind the FIR, pointing out that it had been filed 20 days after the alleged offence. “No one was influenced by his speech, and no untoward incident occurred. This complaint is proof that the police misuse the law and file cases against him repeatedly. His right to freedom of speech has been violated, and the FIR must be quashed,” he reportedly told the court.
According to the FIR, Prabhakar Bhat made the remarks on the afternoon of May 12 at Madhwa Palace in Bantwal’s Kaavalapadoor village, where around 500 people had gathered to condole the death of rowdy-sheeter Suhas Shetty.
The FIR quotes Prabhakar Bhat’s remarks in some detail. He said, “We don’t accept the killing of cows. So many of our youngsters have risen against that. They’re not rowdies; they’re patriots. They protect dharma (religion).”
Prabhakar Bhat then went on to make several abusive remarks against Muslims. “Bearys are the ones who instigate conversions. Bearys are the ones who attack, there are so many instances of this. If we are not prepared for this, if we are not ready to protest, you don’t need to fear. Humans will die either today or tomorrow, and Suhas knew this and carried out his struggle.”
Bearys are Muslims of coastal Karnataka who speak the Beary language.
Prabhakar Bhat then indirectly referred to Hindus as brave. “We are not the children of foxes or dogs. We are the children of lions, Suhas lived as the son of a lion. It is important that we live in that tradition and work towards carrying out that vision. Don’t be afraid that cases will be booked against you. We will face what has to be faced. Don’t run away, this is not the time to run. Don’t do business with those who cheat. It is with our money that they buy talwars, it is with our money that they buy rods, it is with our money they buy pistols…”
The FIR states that the complainant obtained intelligence and videos of the speech and sought legal opinion. It adds that the case was registered because the speech was found to have potential to instigate communal hatred among the audience, which might result in the breakdown of law and order.
The Supreme Court has, on numerous occasions, criticised high courts for granting blanket orders preventing “coercive steps” against the accused. In April 2021, the apex court observed that the FIR was not an encyclopaedia, and stressed that the police must be allowed to complete its investigation.
A three-judge bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, MR Shah, and Sanjiv Khanna laid down clear guidelines for how the courts should handle such cases.
“First information report (FIR) is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law,” the Supreme Court said.
The coastal region of Karnataka has been on the boil with rising communal tension for the past month, with three murders occurring back to back. It began with the mob lynching of Ashraf in Mangaluru on April 27. Days later, rowdy-sheeter Suhas Shetty was murdered on May 1. He was immediately hailed as a Hindu martyr by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and other Hindutva groups, who are demanding an investigation by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) into his death.
After Suhas Shetty’s murder, Udupi and Dakshina Kannada districts saw at least three instances of stabbings, followed by the murder of a man named Abdul Rahiman on May 27.
The past month has also seen a marked rise in hate speech, with the Mangaluru city and Dakshina Kannada police booking several cases. However, a compilation of accounts of hate speech by the Karnataka chapter of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) suggests that cases filed remain grossly inadequate. In a representation to the Mangaluru city police on May 12, PUCL urged action against 33 social media accounts that were allegedly spewing hate.
