The High Court of Karnataka has officially quashed the ongoing criminal proceedings against a participant in a political demonstration, determining that the charges leveled against him lacked the necessary legal foundation and exhibited a clear failure of procedural requirements. In his order, Justice V Srishananda observed that it was entirely implausible that protesters affiliated with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) would intentionally chant slogans favoring a foreign nation, thereby dismissing the allegations that the petitioner had raised “Pakistan Zindabad” slogans with malicious intent.

The case originated from a complaint lodged by a resident of Mandya, who alleged that on December 18, 2022, participants in a BJP-led protest rally shouted “Pakistan Zindabad” (Long live Pakistan) while demonstrating against the Foreign Minister of Pakistan. The complainant, claiming that the auditory experience of the slogan caused him significant mental distress, approached the Mandya West Police Station to initiate legal action. Consequently, a criminal case was registered against several individuals, including the petitioner, D. S. Ravi Kumar, under Sections 153B and 505(1)(B) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The matter eventually reached the trial stage before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate at Mandya.

In seeking to quash the charges, the petitioner argued that the slogans were never intended to cause public unrest or promote communal disharmony. Counsel for the petitioner maintained that the vocalization of the offending slogan was an accidental slip of the tongue occurring in the high-pressure environment of a political protest. The defense posited that the demonstrators intended to raise the slogan “Pakistan Murdabad” (Death to Pakistan) to protest the neighboring country’s foreign policy, but due to the chaotic nature of the demonstration, the words were mispronounced.

Evaluating Political Context and Intent

The High Court scrutinized the inherent nature of the protest, emphasizing the ideological incongruity of the alleged act. Justice Srishananda remarked during the hearing that the court must apply a reasonable degree of logic when evaluating the likelihood of such slogans being uttered at a rally organized by a political party fundamentally opposed to the country being praised. The bench observed, “At the outset, in a demonstration organized by the Bharathiya Janatha Party-a Political Party, It is highly unimaginable that the protesters therein would raise the slogan 'Pakistan Zindabad'.”

The court further noted that the investigation conducted by the police failed to substantiate how the alleged slogan resulted in any tangible unrest or disturbance among the public. The lapse of nearly two years between the occurrence of the incident and the filing of the complaint was also noted as a factor undermining the credibility of the immediate threat perceived by the complainant. The court found that the prosecution had failed to establish any specific intent on the part of the petitioner to promote disharmony, which is a critical ingredient for the offenses charged under Sections 153B and 505(1)(B) of the IPC.

Procedural Hurdles and Legal Compliance

Beyond the factual discrepancies regarding the intent of the protesters, the court identified a significant procedural defect in the initiation of the criminal proceedings. The prosecution failed to obtain the requisite prior sanction from the competent authority before initiating a case under Section 505 of the IPC. Under Section 196(1)(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a magistrate is barred from taking cognizance of such offenses without proper governmental sanction.

This legal requirement acts as a safeguard against the misuse of criminal machinery for frivolous or politically motivated complaints. Because the mandatory approval from the state was absent at the time the Magistrate took cognizance of the case, the court determined that the entire foundation of the proceedings against the petitioner was legally infirm. The bench emphasized that allowing the trial to proceed under such circumstances would not serve the interests of justice and instead would perpetuate a misuse of the judicial system.

“Therefore, continuation of the criminal case in the considered opinion of this Court is thus unnecessary and would amounts to abuse of process of law,” the court held, ultimately finding that the absence of both evidence of intent and the necessary procedural sanction necessitated the immediate termination of the case against the petitioner.

The order serves as a reminder of the judicial threshold required for criminalizing expressions made during public demonstrations. By quashing the proceedings, the High Court of Karnataka has reinforced the principle that criminal charges, particularly those involving sensitive sections of the IPC, must be grounded in both verifiable evidence of criminal intent and strict adherence to statutory prerequisites. With this ruling, the criminal proceedings pending in CC No. 712/2024 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate at Mandya have been formally closed in regard to the petitioner, D. S. Ravi Kumar. The decision effectively concludes the legal battle for the petitioner, who was facing the prospect of a full-scale trial despite the lack of procedural compliance by the state and the implausibility of the accusations.