The Karnataka High Court heard a petition filed by a senior functionary of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh seeking quashing of a first information report registered against him in connection with an alleged hate speech delivered at an educational institution in Dakshina Kannada district. The FIR was lodged following a complaint that the speech contained statements capable of promoting enmity between different religious communities and disturbing public harmony. Based on the complaint, the police invoked provisions of criminal law relating to promotion of enmity between groups, acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony, deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings, statements leading to public mischief, and common intention.
According to the prosecution, the speech was delivered before students and members of the public and was subsequently circulated in video form. The complainant alleged that certain portions of the address targeted a particular community and could incite hatred, resentment, and communal disharmony. The State contended that such speeches, when made in public forums and amplified through digital platforms, have the potential to influence young audiences and disturb social peace. The prosecution also submitted that the content of the speech needed to be examined in detail through investigation to determine whether the statutory ingredients of the alleged offences were made out.
The petitioner approached the High Court challenging the registration of the FIR, arguing that the speech was being selectively quoted and taken out of context. It was contended that the address, when read or heard in its entirety, did not promote hatred or violence against any community and amounted to social and ideological commentary protected under the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression. The petitioner maintained that no incident of violence or public disorder followed the speech, and therefore the invocation of serious penal provisions was unwarranted. He further argued that continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law and would have a chilling effect on free expression.
During the hearing, the State opposed the plea for quashing and urged the court not to interfere at the threshold stage. It submitted that the law requires investigation to ascertain the full impact and intent of the speech, and that the truth or otherwise of the allegations cannot be decided without examining evidence. The State also pointed out that the petitioner had faced similar allegations in the past, contending that repeated instances of such speeches justified closer scrutiny by law enforcement authorities. It was argued that courts should exercise restraint in quashing FIRs in cases involving allegations of hate speech, especially when the content is alleged to have communal overtones.
The High Court considered the rival submissions and examined the scope of its inherent and extraordinary jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings. It took note of the arguments regarding freedom of expression as well as the statutory restrictions imposed in the interest of public order and communal harmony. The court observed that determining whether a speech crosses the line from protected expression into criminal hate speech often involves a careful examination of context, content, intent, and impact, which may not always be possible at the preliminary stage without investigation.
While the matter was under consideration, the High Court continued an interim order restraining the authorities from taking coercive steps against the petitioner. The court indicated that it would pass a detailed order after examining the material on record, including the contents of the speech and the allegations in the FIR. The case was reserved for orders, leaving open the question of whether the criminal proceedings would be quashed or permitted to continue.
The proceedings reflect the judicial balancing exercise between safeguarding freedom of speech and ensuring that expressions which allegedly promote communal hatred or disturb public order are examined in accordance with law. The High Court’s decision, once delivered, is expected to clarify the parameters governing the exercise of power to quash FIRs in cases involving allegations of hate speech and public addresses.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.