The Karnataka High Court on Thursday, May 29, orally asked Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLC N Ravikumar to tender an apology to Kalaburagi Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate Fouzia Taranum. Ravikumar had approached the court seeking to quash a criminal case registered against him for his communal remarks against the DC.
Ravikumar had stirred controversy by saying, “I don’t know whether the DC has come from Pakistan or is an IAS officer here,” while criticising the Kalaburagi district administration on May 24 and alleging it was operating under Congress influence.
Following his comments, Kalaburagi police registered a case against Ravikumar based on a complaint filed by Kalaburagi Samudaya president Dattatraya Ikkalaki. The FIR invoked multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including Sections 197 (imputations prejudicial to national integration), 224 (threat of injury to public servant), 299 and 302 (outraging religious feelings), 351 (criminal intimidation), and 353 (public mischief), along with charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The complaint accused Ravikumar of inciting communal hatred and using derogatory language towards public officials in his speech.
During the hearing, Justice Suraj Govindaraj remarked, “These are not the statements to be made. You have seen what happened in Madhya Pradesh and the Supreme Court with a sitting minister. You are no different. You cannot make such statements.”
The judge was referring to the recent controversy involving BJP leader Kunwar Vijay Shah, who was criticised for his communal statement against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi following ‘Operation Sindoor’. In that case, the Supreme Court had refused to accept Shah’s apology, condemned the remarks, and ordered a special task force investigation.
The High Court also questioned whether Ravikumar’s apology held weight if the aggrieved party had not accepted it. “After making the statement, the apology has to be accepted by the person. You make the apology to the lady in question and let her accept it, and then we will consider this, not until then,” the court said.
Ravikumar’s advocate argued that his client had not made any reference to the DC’s caste or religion, and therefore, the Atrocities Act should not apply. It was also submitted that an apology had already been offered. However, the court maintained that closure could only be considered if the Deputy Commissioner accepts the apology.
The court issued notices returnable by June 19 and directed the government advocate to submit video evidence on a pen drive. It also recorded the state’s assurance that no coercive action would be taken against Ravikumar if he cooperates with the investigation.
Justice Govindaraj also advised the petitioner’s lawyer to counsel his client to bring closure to the issue rather than escalate it further. “It should not have happened in the first place. Now that it has happened, mitigate it,” the judge added.