The Karnataka High Court has issued an interim order staying further investigation in a case of hate speech registered against news anchor Rahul Shivshankar over his post on X about the State government's allocation of funds for welfare of religious minorities.
In an order passed on September 27, Justice M Nagaprasanna imposed an “interim stay on all investigation” in the case registered under Section 153A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) until further orders.
Shivshankar had approached the High Court in February this year seeking quashing of an FIR registered against him following a complaint by one N Ambrish, a city municipal council member from Kolar in Karnataka.
On September 26, Shivshankar’s counsel moved an interim application seeking urgent hearing after the CID sent him a notice under Section 41A of the CrPC asking Shivshankar to record his statement in the case.
During the hearing on the application on September 27, Shivshankar’s counsel told the court that while there already existed an interim order of the Karnataka High Court directing investigating authorities not to precipitate the matter, the State CID sent him a notice recently asking him to appear for questioning.
The State’s counsel told the court that Shivshankar had promoted enmity among religious groups by tweeting that funds meant for Hindu groups had been allocated for development of Waqf properties, Haj Bhavan in Mangalore and development of Christian places of worship. The State also said that Shivshankar had a “history” of making unverified claims and posting similar things on social media in the past. The State also said that Shivshankar need not appear for questioning physically but, he can also appear via video conferencing.
Shivshankar’s counsel however, argued that the anchor was merely doing his job by bringing budget related facts to the public eye. He further said that Shivshankar was being targeted by the CID because of a TV show that he anchored on the MUDA scam.
Justice Nagaprasanna took a strong exception to the State’s objections to Shivshankar’s petition.
The judge said that Shivshankar was merely interpreting the budget allocation by the State and that no ingredient of Section 153A was found in the case.
Referring to post on X, Justice Nagaprasanna said,
“Both these are facts and interpretation of the budget. The crime emerges on the language deployed or the sentences used by the petitioner. The language deployed or sentences used in the considered view of the court would not meet the ingredients of Section 153A or 505 of IPC as elucidated by the Apex court in the case of Javed Ahmad Hajam v State of Maharashtra, (2024) 4 SCC 156.”
The Court will hear the matter further on October 24.