The High Court of Karnataka on Wednesday stayed the First Information Report (FIR) registered against Amit Malviya, head of BJP’s Information Technology cell based on the complaint filed by Ramesh Babu, co-chairman of Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee’s (KPCC) communication department.
The FIR was registered against Mr. Malviya on June 27 for posting an animated video on his Twitter account criticising Rahul Gandhi under the caption, “Rahul Gandhi is dangerous and playing an insidious game…” It was alleged in the complaint that the contents of the video amounts to creating enmity between different groups on the ground of religion, race, and for creating or promoting enmity, hatred and ill-will between classes by circulating statement containing rumour, besides defaming Mr. Gandhi.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, before whom Mr. Malviya’s petition came up for hearing, said that matter requires consideration and passed the interim order staying further investigation to be conducted based on the FIR.
The police had invoked Section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language), 505(2) ( creating or promoting enmity, hatred and ill-will between classes by circulating or publishing statement containing rumour), and Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC against Mr. Malviya.
“The tweet is against an individual, who is said to be the leader of the Indian National Congress party and if it is against an individual how would a tweet against an individual become an act of creating enmity between two different groups be invoked against the petitioner,” the court questioned in its order.
“Section 505 (2) of the IPC, which deals with enmity between classes, cannot also indicate how a tweet against an individual would become a reason for enmity between classes. An individual is neither a group nor a class for invocation of Section 153-A or 505 (2) of the IPC. The complaint does not divulge how the tweet could become the offences under the afore-said provisions of the IPC. The matter would require consideration,” the court said.
“If further investigation is permitted to continue, it would run foul of the judgment of the apex court in the case of Patricia Mukhim vs. State of Meghalaya in which the apex court has interpreted the purport of these provisions of the IPC,” Justice Nagaprasanna observed.
Earlier, BJP MP and advocate Tejsavi L. Surya, appearing for Mr. Malviya, had argued that the allegations made in the complaint are not even remotely linked to the contents of the video uploaded on Twitter account as it does not contain any element related to causing social discord or enmity between groups or classes.
The complaint was filed mischievously only to wreak vengeance against the petitioner, who belongs to rival political party, and the narration of complaint is nothing but creative imagination of the complainant, it has been alleged in Mr. Malviya’s petition.
