Back
refuses to BJP's Pratap Simha in FIR under
The on Thursday declined to grant immediate to BJP MP Pratap Simha, who is facing multiple FIRs—including charges under the —over remarks he made during a Ganesha Visarjan procession about individuals wearing "blue shawls."
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, presiding over a single-judge bench, directed the state to file its response to the petition challenging the FIR, and scheduled the next hearing for . In a related petition challenging a separate FIR registered for alleged on a public servant and , the court recorded the State Public Prosecutor's assurance that no would be filed before the next date, listing that matter for .
The 'Blue Shawl' Controversy
The case stems from an incident on the evening of during the annual Gowri-Ganesha festival procession in T. Narasipura. According to the petitions, the procession was conducted with police permission and bandobast. However, prior to the event, a police officer allegedly made derogatory remarks about the procession passing near a mosque—comments that agitated the devotees.
It was at this point, the petition claims, that Mr. Simha addressed the police inspector from the procession vehicle. The MP contends his remarks were directed at the "indecent conduct" of the police officer, not at any caste or religious community.
Four days later, on , a complaint by the President of a local association led to a second FIR invoking Sections 352 () and 356 () of the , along with . The crux of the complaint: that Mr. Simha insulted the Dalit community by referring to activists wearing blue shawls as coming only for their livelihood, telling them to "read Ambedkar first," and calling Dalit office-bearers "agitators" for money.
The Two FIRs Under Challenge
The first FIR, registered by the on , invoked provisions including . The petitioner argues this FIR contains no allegation of any actual , , or gesture against any public servant, asserting that "" cannot constitute , especially when the procession concluded peacefully under police supervision.
The second FIR specifically targets the provisions. Mr. Simha's legal challenge contends that requires an to a member of a Scheduled Caste . The petition argues that the complaint fails to identify a single Scheduled Caste member who was insulted, the complainant does not claim to be a victim, and the "blue shawl" is a symbol of a political movement, not a caste identifier. Critically, the defence notes that the words attributed to the petitioner contain no caste name or slur.
A Political Symbol, Not a Caste Designation
A key legal argument presented before the court draws a sharp distinction between criticizing a set of activists and promoting hatred against the Scheduled Castes as a class. The petition contends that the against an indeterminate body like "Dalit organizations" cannot constitute of an under .
Adding weight to this argument, the petitioner points out that the police's own verbatim transcript of the speech—prepared for the first FIR—contains no reference whatsoever to the "blue shawl" remark, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, or Dalit organizations. This omission, the plea suggests, undermines the very basis of the second FIR.
Court's Limited Ruling and Next Steps
Given the limited hearing on Thursday, the court did not delve into the merits of the . Instead, it granted the state time to file objections, effectively keeping the legal sword hanging over Mr. Simha—at least for now. The undertaking that no will be filed in the FIR until provides a narrow window of .
The core question—whether a remark about a "blue shawl" in the heat of a politically charged speech can attract the stringent provisions of the —remains unanswered. The court's eventual ruling on the will likely turn on whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclose the of . For now, the 's refusal to grant signals that it is not prepared to intervene at this , leaving the matter to be tested on a .
The case now awaits the state's formal response, with the courtroom drama set to resume on and 29.
