Supreme Court Quashes Case Against Activist For Calling Mallikarjun Kharge 'Ayogya'

New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Friday quashed a criminal case filed against right-wing activist Chakravarty Sulibele by Karnataka Police for calling the Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge an 'ayogya' (incompetent) during a public address. 

The activist was booked by the Karnataka Police in 2023 for, a move widely seen as an overreach by the state machinery (Mithun Chakravarty Devidas Shet v. State of Karnataka and anr).

"Such cases are abuse of process of law and an attack on the freedom of expression," Senior Advocate Aruna Shyam, who represented Sulibele in the case, said while speaking exclusively to Republic Digital.

For the unversed, the Supreme Court judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh. The petition was filed by advocates Sudhanshu Prakash and Suyog Herele.

What Was The Case?

In January 2024, during a public address in Raichur, Karnataka, Chakravarty Sulibele referred to Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge as 'Ayogya' (incompetent).

Following this, Congress Kalaburagi Unit President Jagadev Guttedar Kalagi filed a criminal complaint, claiming Sulibele’s remarks incited hatred and violence against Kharge's caste, a serious and unfounded escalation.

Acting upon the complaint, the Karnataka Police booked Sulibele under Sections 153-A (promoting enmity), 153B (assertions prejudicial to national integration), and 505(2) (promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Section 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC/ST Act).

What Happened in Karnataka High Court in 2024?

The High Court had earlier quashed the charges under the SC/ST Act in 2024 but allowed the investigation under IPC sections to continue.

"The investigation is still under progress. The FIR has been stayed by this Court. In order to establish whether the petitioner had any criminal intention or not, it has to be considered by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. The police are said to have collected audio, video, CDs, or clippings from the complainant, which need to be verified for the purpose of investigation and to file the final report. Therefore, at this stage, the Court cannot determine whether the petitioner had a criminal intention to cause alarm or disturb public peace or tranquility. 

This can only be assessed upon completion of the investigation", the Karnataka HC ruled, a decision that led Sulibele to approach the Supreme Court.

What Sublibele Argued Before The Supreme Court?

Before the apex court, Sulibele argued that the High Court had misinterpreted the word ‘Ayogya’ as ‘rascal’, which was never the intent nor the linguistic meaning of the term.

"The word 'Ayogya' has several synonyms, and one of its closest meanings is ‘worthless’. The Hon’ble High Court erred in choosing to interpret it solely as ‘rascal’. The Court also failed to appreciate the use of the expression 'Ayogya' in the context of the present case," Sulibele contended in his petition filed through advocates Sudhanshu Prakash and Suyog Herele.

The ruling by the Supreme Court lays bare the Karnataka Police's excessive and politically motivated response but also raises serious questions about the state government's commitment to upholding democratic values and free speech.

'Freedom of Speech Can't Be Crushed On Flimsy Grounds'

"Seventy-five years into our republic, we cannot be seen to be so shaky on our fundamentals that mere recital of a poem or, for that matter, any form of art or entertainment, such as stand-up comedy, can be alleged to lead to animosity or hatred amongst different communities," the Supreme Court had earlier said in a case against a Congress MP earlier in the year.

Read Also: "Those Who Harbor Terror Will No Longer Escape": Army Chief Warns Pakistan, Says 'Befitting Reply Is the New Normal' on Kargil Vijay Diwas