Key Takeaways:

• Karnataka High Court has stayed the FIR against BJP MP Tejasvi Surya over a tweet linked to a farmer’s suicide in Haveri.
• Surya’s tweet alleged that the farmer’s suicide was due to his land being taken over by the Wakf Board.
• The tweet was later deleted after clarification from the police that the suicide occurred two years ago due to financial distress.
• The court questioned if the police were justified in registering the FIR and decided to stay the investigation until December 4, 2024.
• The Karnataka government opposed the petition, arguing the tweet could incite communal enmity.
• Justice M. Nagaprasanna expressed concerns about whether the state’s actions were appropriate in this case.

The Karnataka High Court, on Thursday, granted an interim stay on the investigation against BJP MP Tejasvi Surya regarding an FIR lodged by the Haveri police.

Surya had posted a tweet linking the suicide of a farmer in Haveri district to the Wakf Board, which led to accusations of spreading fake news.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the interim order while hearing a petition filed by Surya, seeking the quashing of the FIR registered against him under section 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly promoting enmity and misrepresentation.

Surya’s Tweet Sparks Controversy

The controversy began when Surya, a Member of Parliament, tweeted a post based on a news report that alleged a farmer in Haveri district committed suicide after his land was allegedly taken over by the Wakf Board.

In his tweet, Surya claimed, “A farmer in Haveri commits suicide after finding his land taken over by Waqf! In their haste to appease minorities, CM Siddaramaiah and Minister B. Z. Zameer Ahmed Khan have unleashed catastrophic effects in Karnataka that are becoming impossible to contain with every passing day.”

This post, which Surya later deleted, drew attention from the media and the police. The Haveri police initiated an investigation following a suo motu complaint by a local police inspector, accusing Surya of spreading misleading information that could harm societal harmony.

Court’s Interim Ruling

During the hearing, Surya’s counsel, Senior Advocate Aruna Shyam, argued that the tweet was based on a news report.

The lawyer further emphasized that after the police clarified that the farmer had died two years ago due to financial distress, Surya had swiftly deleted the post.

Shyam contended that the deletion of the tweet and the subsequent clarification vindicated Surya’s position, making it improbable that the tweet constituted an offence under section 505(2) of the IPC, which deals with the dissemination of false information intended to promote enmity between different groups.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while staying the FIR and further proceedings against Surya, questioned whether the police were justified in registering the FIR.

The judge also expressed concern about whether the state’s actions were appropriate, quoting, “Is what is happening also correct? Just yesterday, I said that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.”

The Court directed that the FIR and further investigations would be stayed until the next hearing, scheduled for December 4, 2024.

State Government’s Opposition

The Karnataka State government, however, strongly opposed the petition, arguing that Surya’s post had the potential to incite hatred between communities and adversely affect social harmony.

The government urged the court to consider whether such statements violated public order and triggered societal unrest.

Justice Nagaprasanna, in his observations, seemed to suggest that the FIR and the police action might be disproportionate, especially in light of Surya’s deletion of the tweet following police clarification.

Legal Implications and Public Sentiment

This case brings into focus the fine line between freedom of speech and the responsibility to prevent the spread of misinformation.

Legal experts suggest that while public figures must exercise caution when making statements that could incite division, they also have the right to express their views, provided they do not violate laws against promoting communal discord.

The interim stay granted by the Karnataka High Court raises important questions about the scope of legal protections for public figures and the standards for initiating investigations based on social media posts.

The court’s decision to stay the FIR until December 4 ensures that Tejasvi Surya will not face immediate legal repercussions, while the larger questions surrounding the case remain unresolved.

Bench Details:

• Justice M. Nagaprasanna – Presiding Judge