Karnataka High Court nixes petition seeking action against BJP leaders for hate speech

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed a PIL seeking action against certain BJP leaders and right wing leaders in relation to their alleged hate speeches.

The petitioner Mohammed Khaleelulla, a resident of Mandya and a civil contractor, stated that the PIL had to be filed since the authorities failed to take action in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court.

The PIL was filed in 2022 and alleged that former BJP leader KS Eshwarappa, MP Renukacharya, CT Ravi, Pratap Simha, Basanagouda Patil Yatnal, Shobha Karandlaje and Tejasvi Soorya had made hate speeches stoking communal tension targeting the Muslim community.

The petition said similar hate speeches were made by right wing leaders Rishi Kumaraswamy, Pramod Muthalik and Chakravarthy Sulibele. The petitioner cited media reports which contained the statements/speeches made by these 10 persons and submitted a representation to the state government seeking action.

In terms of the guidelines prescribed by the Apex Court in Tehseen Poonawala case, the union government and the state governments are required to take ‘preventive’, remedial’ and ‘punitive’ action to tackle cases of lynching, mob violence and hate speeches, the petition said. According to the petitioner, nothing has been done by the state government to take measures as directed by the Apex Court.

Besides action against these 10 persons, the petition also sought directions to the state to implement other directions issued by the Apex Court.

These include broadcasting on television, radio and other medium to create awareness that hate speeches, mob violence and mob lynching shall invite serious consequences and also to designate a court in each district to try cases of hate speech and other related cases and conclude trial within six months.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Justice KV Aravind noted that the petition is too general in nature to be countenanced.

“The allegations lack authentication. Even otherwise, the petition of such nature cannot be entertained as public interest litigation. The petition is filed in the nature of public interest litigation with political or communal motive and cannot be entertained. No case is made out to entertain the present petition. It is liable to be dismissed with cost, however taking a lenient view it is summarily dismissed,” the bench said.