‘Need your blessings, not interference in politics’: DKS tells swamijis amid leadership row, asks Cong leaders to shout mouth

Karnataka DGP (Civil Rights Enforcement) K Ramachandra Rao was suspended with immediate effect, as per a state government order issued on Monday, 19 January. The order cited conduct unbecoming of a government servant and causing embarrassment to the state administration.

The Karnataka government suspended Rao after a purported video showed him in a compromising position with a woman inside his official chamber. The video went viral on social media. Rao rejected the videos outright, terming them "fabricated and false".

Who is K Ramachandra Rao?

Rao is a DGP-rank officer who was heading the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement until his suspension. He was promoted to DGP in September 2023 and assumed office in October 2023, the Sunday Guardian reported.

He also served as the Chairman and Managing Director of the Karnataka State Police Housing and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited.

His stint as the Inspector General of Police (IGP) for the Southern Range was also marred by controversy. In 2014, during a cash seizure near Mysuru’s Yelwal, officials claimed the seized amount was ₹20 lakh, while the accused (Kerala-based merchants) claimed it was around ₹2.27 crore.

Rao, who was present during the seizure, denied all allegations. However, he was transferred soon after.

Allegations of collusion with a businessman surfaced, and a senior police officer was quoted by The Sunday Guardian as saying, “In Rao’s case, the CID has clearly mentioned that there was a great degree of lapse on the part of Rao and a deputy superintendent of police after it was brought to their notice that a few policemen, including a gunman attached to the IGP, were involved in the robbery.”

Rao had denied all wrongdoing in that incident. Despite past controversies, he rose to the state’s top police position, the Sunday Guardian reported.

Ranya Rao’s stepfather

Rao is the stepfather of Kannada actress Harshavardhini Ranya alias Ranya Rao, accused of orchestrating the illegal import of gold worth over ₹12.56 crore from Dubai to India along with two others — businessman Tarun Raju, and jewellery dealer Sahil Jain.

‘Obscene video’ controversy

A viral video showed Rao behaving inappropriately with a woman inside his office while in uniform.

The Karnataka government said in its Monday order that “vide videos and news reports widely broadcast on public news channels and media platforms, it is observed that Dr K Ramachandra Rao has acted in an obscene manner which is unbecoming of a Government Servant and also causing embarrassment to the Government.”

The order said the matter was examined by the state government, which found that the officer's conduct amounted to a violation of Rule 3 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.

The government said it is prima facie satisfied that "it is necessary to place Rao under suspension with immediate effect, pending inquiry".

During the suspension period, Rao will be entitled to subsistence allowance as per Rule 4 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969.

The order also places restrictions on his movement, stating that during the period of suspension, the officer must not leave headquarters under any circumstances without the written permission of the state government.

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash an investigation against a WhatsApp group administrator accused of allowing the circulation of obscene and offensive images depicting Hindutva politicians and idols in 2021.

Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that, prima facie, the ingredients of the offence under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code were made out. “The offence under Section 295A of the IPC is met to every word of its ingredient, albeit prima facie,” the judge said.

The petitioner, Sirajuddin, a resident of Belthangady taluk in Dakshina Kannada district, had challenged the FIR registered against him at the CEN (Cyber, Economics and Narcotics) police station, Mangaluru, for offences under Section 295A of the IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. Section 295A relates to punishment for deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens.

According to the complaint filed by K Jayaraj Salian, also a resident of Belthangady taluk, he received a WhatsApp group link from an unknown source and was added to the group after accessing it. The group reportedly had six administrators and around 250 participants, where obscene and offensive images depicting Hindu deities and certain political figures were allegedly circulated repeatedly.

Sirajuddin was arrested in connection with the case and later released on bail on February 16, 2021. He argued before the court that he was being selectively targeted, while other administrators—including the creator of the group—were neither arrested nor investigated. He also contended that the Magistrate could not have taken cognisance of the offence under Section 295A without prior sanction under Section 196(1) of the CrPC.

Rejecting the argument, Justice Nagaprasanna held that prior sanction is required only at the stage of taking cognisance, and not at the stage of registration of the crime or during investigation.

The judge noted that the State had produced the entire investigation material before the court. “A perusal of the material reveals depictions of Hindu deities in an extraordinarily obscene, demeaning and profane manner. The content is such that its reproduction in a judicial order would itself be inappropriate,” the court said, adding that the material, on its face, had the tendency to outrage religious feelings and disturb communal harmony.

Observing that the case was still at the investigation stage, the court said it could not interdict the probe at this juncture. However, it expressed concern that the investigating officer appeared to have not proceeded uniformly against all administrators. The court clarified that if the investigation revealed the active involvement of any member in permitting the circulation of such content, they must also be proceeded against.

“At this investigative stage, any further observation by this Court would be unnecessary,” the order concluded.

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash an investigation against a WhatsApp group administrator accused of allowing the circulation of obscene and offensive images depicting Hindutva politicians and idols in 2021.

Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that, prima facie, the ingredients of the offence under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code were made out. “The offence under Section 295A of the IPC is met to every word of its ingredient, albeit prima facie,” the judge said.

The petitioner, Sirajuddin, a resident of Belthangady taluk in Dakshina Kannada district, had challenged the FIR registered against him at the CEN (Cyber, Economics and Narcotics) police station, Mangaluru, for offences under Section 295A of the IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. Section 295A relates to punishment for deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens.

According to the complaint filed by K Jayaraj Salian, also a resident of Belthangady taluk, he received a WhatsApp group link from an unknown source and was added to the group after accessing it. The group reportedly had six administrators and around 250 participants, where obscene and offensive images depicting Hindu deities and certain political figures were allegedly circulated repeatedly.

Sirajuddin was arrested in connection with the case and later released on bail on February 16, 2021. He argued before the court that he was being selectively targeted, while other administrators—including the creator of the group—were neither arrested nor investigated. He also contended that the Magistrate could not have taken cognisance of the offence under Section 295A without prior sanction under Section 196(1) of the CrPC.

Rejecting the argument, Justice Nagaprasanna held that prior sanction is required only at the stage of taking cognisance, and not at the stage of registration of the crime or during investigation.

The judge noted that the State had produced the entire investigation material before the court. “A perusal of the material reveals depictions of Hindu deities in an extraordinarily obscene, demeaning and profane manner. The content is such that its reproduction in a judicial order would itself be inappropriate,” the court said, adding that the material, on its face, had the tendency to outrage religious feelings and disturb communal harmony.

Observing that the case was still at the investigation stage, the court said it could not interdict the probe at this juncture. However, it expressed concern that the investigating officer appeared to have not proceeded uniformly against all administrators. The court clarified that if the investigation revealed the active involvement of any member in permitting the circulation of such content, they must also be proceeded against.

“At this investigative stage, any further observation by this Court would be unnecessary,” the order concluded.