People's representatives have onus of protecting nation's integrity: Karnataka High Court

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has observed that protection of the integrity of the nation, both locally and globally, is the duty of every citizen of the nation, more so, of the representatives of those citizens.

Justice M Nagaprasanna made the remarks while quashing the FIR registered against BJP legislator Basanagouda Patil Yatnal for his comments against Rahul Gandhi, Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha.

The High Grounds police in Bengaluru had registered the FIR against Yatnal for his statements against Rahul Gandhi questioning his origin or orientation. The complaint was filed by S Manohar, secretary of Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC). It was claimed that Yatnal had said "it is not known if Rahul was born to a Muslim, Christian or a Brahmin." Yatnal had further said that Rahul Gandhi’s mother is an Italian and father a Mughal and Rahul is like a ‘country pistol’. The FIR was registered for offences under sections 192, 196 and 353(2) of BNS.

Challenging the FIR, it was argued that Yatnal had made this statement after Rahul Gandhi showed India in a bad light abroad. In an interview in the US, Rahul Gandhi had said that he can think of scrapping reservation when India is a fair place and further said that India is not a fair place at present.

Perusing the records, Justice Nagaprasanna said that it was a reckless registration of crime by the police, without even looking into the contents and the offences. On invoking section 192 of BNS (provocation resulting in the offence of rioting on provocation), the court said, “What is spoken is not capable of any rioting to be committed as they are personal to a person. There is no provocation of any rioting even in the remotest sense in what is alleged. Therefore, the offence is loosely laid.”

On the other offence under section 196 of the BNS, for promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, the court said that there are no two groups involved in the case at hand. “The other offence is Section 353(2) of the BNS. Section 353(2) is rumour or alarming news which is false being published or circulated resulting in feeling of enmity, ill-will and hatred between different religions. Here again, it should be between different religions. There is no question of different religions being involved in the statement made by the petitioner,” the court said.

Citing the Apex Court judgement in Bhajan Lal, the court said that even if the complaint is taken as true, it would not meet the ingredients of offences alleged. The court further observed, “It is necessary to observe that protection of the integrity of the nation, both locally and globally, is the duty of every citizen of the nation, more so, of the representatives of those citizens.”