Karnataka High Court
All India Dalit Action Committee (R) vs Sri Rahul Gandhi on 21 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42020-DB
WP No. 20712 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION No. 20712 OF 2024 (GM-RES-PIL)
BETWEEN:
1. ALL INDIA DALIT ACTION COMMITTEE (R)
JOINTLY REP. BY:
SRI CHI. NA. RAMU,
NATIONAL PRESIDENT,
AADHAR No. 829147762747,
PAN No.AALTA5753A.
AND
SMT. SUSHEELA DEVARAJ,
NATIONAL SECRETARY,
WOMENS WING,
AADHAR No. 907224338554
Digitally signed
by VALLI
MARIMUTHU (BOTH ARE FUNCTIONING FROM)
Location: High ALL INDIA DALIT ACTION COMMITTEE,
Court of
Karnataka
No. 48, 10TH CROSS
MALLESHARAM,
BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA 560003.
MOBILE: 9900138278,
EMAIL: chi.na.ramu.cnr@gmail com.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR S. S., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42020-DB
WP No. 20712 of 2024
AND:
1. SRI RAHUL GANDHI,
HON'BLE MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT
AND LEADER OF OPPOSITION,
118, RAFI MARG,
NEW DELHI 110011.
PHONE: 011-23795500.
EMAIL: [email protected].
2. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR WOMEN,
REP. BY CHIARPERSON,
PLOT 21, JASOLA INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
NEW DELHI 110025,
PHONE 011-26942369, 26944740,
EMAIL: [email protected].
3. STATE COMMISSION FOR WOMEN,
REP. BY ITS CHAIRPERSON,
1ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN,
KHB BLDG, K. G. MARG,
BANGLAORE 560009.
PHONE: 080-22216485,
EMAIL: [email protected].
4. THE HOME DEPARTMENT,
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
ROOM No. 222, II FLOOR,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU 560001,
080-22258830, 22033456,
[email protected].
5. KARNATAKA STATE POLICE,
REP. BY: DIRECTOR-GENERAL AND
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
No. 2, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU 560001.
PHONE 080-22942111,
EMAIL:[email protected].
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R4 & R5)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:42020-DB
WP No. 20712 of 2024
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT NOS. 2, 3, 4 AND 5 WHO ARE THE AUTHORITIES IN
THIS CONTEXT TO TAKE NECESSARY ACTION BY LAW, AGAINST
THE RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR HIS HATE SPEECH, RESULTING IN
OUTRAGING THE MODESTY OF THE WOMEN, FOR VIOLATIONS OF
LAW OF LAND AND FOR SHOWING DISRESPECT TO THE
CONSTITUTION AND DISOBEDIENCES TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL
SAFEGUARDS TO THE BHARATIYA NAARI AND DIRECTING
RESPONDENT No-1 TO TENDER UNCONDITIONAL APOLOGY TO
THE WOMEN OF BHARAT FOR SAID UNCONSTITUTIONAL
SPEECHES, RESULTING OUTRAGING THE MODESTY OF WOMEN,
INSULT, PAIN AGONY AND SUFFERINGS FROM STIGMA OF
SUSPICION OF RAPE EVER ATTACHED AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
Heard learned Advocate Mr. S.S. Ravi Shankar for the
petitioner.
2. The petitioner herein projects itself to be a socio-political
organization. It has filed the present petition styling it as public
interest petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:42020-DB
3. What the petitioner complains is about certain alleged
statements made in the electioneering and other speeches by
respondent No.1, who happens to be the Member of Parliament. It
is alleged that respondent No.1 in his electioneering speech while
seeking votes in favour of the candidates of his party, at
Shivamogga, Karnataka, in the Parliamentary Elections held in
2024, leveled allegations against particular political person named
in the petition describing said person as 'rapist'.
3.1 It is sought to be contended by the public interest petitioner
that by making various statements with such description, the
speech maker-respondent No.1 herein, threw to the winds the
norms of decency and further that the statements operated adverse
to the modesty of the class of women in general.
4. With such basic premise alleged and urged, the petitioner
organization prayed to direct respondent No.2-National
Commission for Women, respondent No.3-the State Commission
for Women, respondent No.4-the Home Department of the State of
Karnataka and respondent No.5-the Karnataka State Police, to
take action against respondent No.1 for his alleged hate speeches.
It was prayed further to direct private respondent No.1-the speech
NC: 2024:KHC:42020-DB
maker to tender unconditional apology for his said speeches
described as unconstitutional speeches. The petitioner prayed that
the authorities may be directed to publish a White Paper, further to
impose cost on respondent No.1.
5. The Court does not want to go into the merits or demerits of
the alleged statements and utterances of respondent No.1. It is to
be observed that the subject matter of the kind and nature as well
as type of allegations raised could hardly be for consideration and
entertainment in public interest jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution. Not only that, the issues and
aspects require leading of evidence and appreciation of materials.
The other recourses and remedies are available to the petitioner in
relation to what is alleged in the petition.
5.1 The petitioner may take recourse for its grievances to such
remedies and recourses which are statutorily in nature before the
respondent herein or appropriate forum or before the investigating
agencies where jurisdiction may be attracted in the subject. This
Court, however, does not express anything about such recourses
or the merits thereof.
NC: 2024:KHC:42020-DB
5.2 Furthermore, the allegations raised in the petition travel in
the realm of breach of Model Code of Conduct required to be
observed by the political parties, their leaders and candidates in
course of the election process and while engaging themselves into
the electioneering and election canvassing. The petitioner himself
has relied on the Code of Conduct in paragraph 34 onwards in the
pleadings of the petition. For enforcement of code of conduct
during election, the petitioner has remedy elsewhere.
5.3 Prayers advanced could hardly be entertained in public
interest jurisdiction. If the code of conduct is breached or a hate
speech is delivered, which is the allegation of the petitioner, they
are the matters of investigation to be conducted by the competent
authorities. The domain of the Court and the public interest
jurisdiction could not have been invoked, nor could be employed by
the petitioner for seeking such prayers.
5.4 It is not for this Court to assess and opine about public
utterances which may be made by political leaders in course of
their public speeches or during the election canvass.
NC: 2024:KHC:42020-DB
5.5 As a Constitutional Court, this Court could only expect and
hope that decency, decorum would be maintained and the
responsible use of language would be employed by the leaders in
the political field, who are in public life, in their public speeches and
all dispensations. These and such virtues are the asset for a
person in public life. They have become scarce and dear in these
days. This court cannot go beyond above observations.
6. The petition is not entertained. It is open for the petitioner to
avail any remedy, if advised, and as may be available in law.
7. This petition has to be perceived and viewed in the facts of
the case, not only as misconceived but also as a public interest
petition. It amounts to wastage of judicial time. Therefore, it is
dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand
only) to be paid within fifteen days to the High Court Legal Services
Committee, Bengaluru.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
