Karnataka HC continues investigation against journalist Rahul Sivasankar over tweet about allocation of funds to religious minorities

The Karnataka High Court on Friday issued an interim order staying all further investigations in a case registered against journalist Rahul Sivasankar over his tweet about allocation of funds for the welfare of religious minorities by the state government.

The journalist has approached the court to quash an FIR lodged under Sections 153A and 505 of the IPC in which Kolar councilor N Ambaresh complained about Sivasankar’s “sarcastic” tweet about fund allocation for the development of Waqf properties, Haj Bhavan in Mangalore and the development of Christian places complained of worship.

A single bench bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, referring to the tweet, said: “Both are facts and interpretations of the budget. The offense arises from the language or phrases used by the plaintiff. The wordings or phrases used in the considered view of the Court would not fall within the ingredients of Section 153A or 505 of the IPC as explained by the Apex Court in Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 4 SCC 156.”

This is what it said: “Therefore, an interim order should be issued suspending all investigations until the learned SPP files his objection or seeks a lifting or modification of the interim order. List the matter for further hearing on October 24.”

Sivasankar had postponed the matter for urgent hearing on Thursday after the police served him a notice under Section 41A of the CrPC asking him to record his statement. The petitioner’s counsel claimed that the notice was issued after he aired a program on the MUDA case involving Chief Minister Siddaramaiah.

In his petition, the journalist claimed that the tweet was published after proper verification of the facts contained therein from various newspaper reports as well as the budget speech published by the state government itself.

He added that as a journalist, he often shares factual tweets in this way to raise public awareness about important issues, but the same cannot be used to charge him with a crime.

Sivasankar said he was just seeking an explanation as to why no funds were allocated in the budget to temples, which generate large revenue for the state government, while other religious places of worship were allocated large sums of money.

Case Title: RAHUL SIVASANKAR AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT & ANO

Case No: CRL.P 2457/2024