The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case against journalist Rahul Shivshankar, dismissing allegations of hate speech over his post on X (formerly Twitter) regarding the State government’s budget allocations for religious minorities.
Justice M Nagaprasanna, presiding over the case, granted relief to Shivshankar, who had challenged the First Information Report (FIR) filed against him. Delivering the verdict, the Court declared, “Criminal petition allowed. FIR stands quashed.”
The case originated from a complaint filed by N Ambrish, a city municipal council member from Kolar, Karnataka. The complaint alleged that Shivshankar’s social media post, which claimed that government funds meant for Hindu groups had been redirected toward Waqf properties, Haj Bhavan in Mangalore, and the development of Christian places of worship, incited enmity between religious groups.
The State government had argued that Shivshankar had a “history” of making unverified statements on social media and that his post promoted disharmony. The prosecution contended that his remarks violated Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to promoting enmity between different religious groups.
However, Shivshankar’s counsel countered that his client was merely reporting budgetary details and fulfilling his professional duty as a journalist. He further contended that the news anchor was being unfairly targeted by the Crime Investigation Department (CID) due to his critical coverage of the MUDA scam on his television program.
In September 2024, Justice Nagaprasanna had already granted interim relief to Shivshankar, noting that there was no prima facie evidence to substantiate the charge under Section 153A of the IPC. The judge remarked that Shivshankar’s post was an interpretation of government budget allocations and did not contain elements that could be classified as hate speech or incitement to violence.
The Court also referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra, which laid down the legal threshold for invoking Section 153A and Section 505 of the IPC. Justice Nagaprasanna reiterated that the language and tone of Shivshankar’s post did not meet the criteria necessary for the charges to stand.
In light of these observations, the High Court officially annulled the FIR and dismissed the case. The verdict reinforces the protection of journalistic freedom, particularly in cases where reporting is based on publicly available government data.
The ruling serves as a significant precedent concerning free speech and the legal interpretation of Section 153A in the digital age. With this judgment, the Karnataka High Court reaffirmed that commentary on government decisions, even when critical, does not necessarily amount to hate speech unless it explicitly incites violence or enmity between communities.
Shivshankar’s legal victory highlights the judiciary’s role in ensuring that criminal laws are not misused to suppress journalistic expression. It also underscores the importance of distinguishing between objective analysis and deliberate provocation in matters concerning free speech.
