Karnataka High Court quashes FIR against BJP's Chalavadi Narayanaswamy, TS Srivatsa over ST status remarks

In a significant ruling that reinforces the boundaries of free political speech, the Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR against BJP leader and Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Council , Chalavadi Narayanaswamy, and sitting MLA TS Srivatsa. The case stemmed from their statements opposing the grant of Scheduled Tribe status to the Kuruba community. Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that mere opposition to a reservation policy cannot constitute an offence under Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ( BNS ) , which penalises acts promoting enmity between groups.

A Political Statement, Not a Crime

The controversy began when Narayanaswamy and Srivatsa made statements—both in their offices and on social media—opposing the proposal to classify the Kuruba community as a Scheduled Tribe. The complainant alleged that these remarks humiliated the community and were intended to create public disorder. Based on this, the Vidhana Soudha police registered Crime No. 97/2025 under Section 353(2) BNS (corresponding to the former Section 153A IPC ). The petitioners moved the High Court under Section 528 BNNS ( Section 482 CrPC ) seeking quashing of the FIR.

Senior counsel M. Aruna Shyam argued that the statements were a legitimate expression of political dissent and did not meet the ingredients of the offence. He relied on a string of Supreme Court judgments emphasising that the offence requires a deliberate intent to promote disharmony—an element wholly absent here. Additional State Public Prosecutor Anoop Kumar countered that the investigation was at a nascent stage and that a prima facie case existed.

The Legal Test: Mens Rea and the “Reasonable Man” Standard

Justice Nagaprasanna meticulously examined the complaint and the law. He noted that the core issue was whether political opposition to a reservation policy could be criminalised. Drawing extensively from the Supreme Court ’s recent decision in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat ( 2026 ) and the earlier Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra ( 2024 ), the court reiterated that mens rea is an essential ingredient of Section 353 BNS . “The intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence,” the court observed, quoting the Apex Court.

The judgment also applied the “reasonable man” test from Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya ( 2021 ), which holds that words must be judged from the standpoint of a firm and courageous individual, not a weak or hypersensitive one. “The effect of the spoken or written words cannot be judged on the basis of the standards of people who always have a sense of insecurity,” the court noted.

“Opposition Does Not Amount to Offence”

The High Court concluded that the petitioners had merely protested against the proposed ST status for Kurubas. “Talks that were going on at that point in time, this by itself would not make an offence under Section 353(2) of the BNS / Section 505 of the IPC ,” Justice Nagaprasanna wrote. Emphasising the fundamental right to dissent under Article 19(1)(a) , the court held that criticism of government policy is an integral part of democracy. “If every criticism or protest of the actions of the State is to be held as an offence under Section 153-A , democracy will not survive,” it added, quoting Javed Ahmad Hajam .

Key Observations from the Judgment

  • “The petitioners did protest against the reservation / Scheduled Tribe - Kuruba reservation. Talks that were going on at that point in time, this by itself would not make an offence under Section 353(2) of the BNS / Section 505 of the IPC .”
  • “ Mens rea will have to be read into Section 196 BNS . In this case, looking to the text of the words spoken and the context in which those were spoken, it is impossible to attribute any mens rea to the appellant.”
  • “Free expression of thoughts and views by individuals or group of individuals is an integral part of a healthy civilised society. Without freedom of expression of thoughts and views, it is impossible to lead a dignified life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution .”

Final Order and Implications

Allowing the criminal petition, Justice Nagaprasanna quashed the entire investigation in Crime No. 97/2025 pending before the XLII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City . The ruling underscores that political dissent, even when sharp and critical, must be protected unless it crosses the clear threshold of incitement to violence. It also serves as a reminder to investigative agencies to conduct a preliminary inquiry in cases involving speech offences, as mandated by Section 173(3) BNSS , to ensure that fundamental rights are not trampled by premature FIRs.