Unseen hands at work to engineer social unrest and disharmony, claims High Court

News Network
March 15, 2022

Bengaluru, Mar 15: The Karnataka High Court has endorsed the BJP government argument about possibility of some 'unseen hands' behind the hijab row to engineer social unrest and disharmony. The court also expressed dismay over the issue being blown out of proportion.

"The way hijab imbroglio unfolded gives scope for the argument that some 'unseen hands' are at work to engineer social unrest and disharmony. Much is not necessary to specify," the three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi said in the order.

The full bench also comprising Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice J M Khazi dismissed a batch of petitions filed by a few Muslim girl students from Udupi Government Pre-University Girls' College who sought permission that they be allowed to attend classes wearing hijab.

The court however, made it clear that it was not commenting on the ongoing police investigation. During the course of hearing, some counsels had brought to the notice of the court the alleged involvement of the Campus Front of India (CFI) and other organisations in inciting the Muslim students.

When the court sought to know, Advocate General Prabhuling Navadgi handed over a letter in a sealed cover to the bench. "We have perused and returned copies of the police papers that were furnished to us in a sealed cover. We expect a speedy and effective investigation into the matter and culprits being brought to book, brooking no delay," the bench noted.

The judges observed that all was well with the dress code since 2004. It also said that they were impressed that even Muslims participate in festivals that are celebrated in the "Ashta Mutt Sampradaya" in Udupi where eight Mutts are situated. "We are dismayed as to how all of a sudden that too in the middle of the academic term the issue of hijab is generated and blown out of proportion by the powers that be," the bench noted.

The court also declined to entertain petitions which had sought an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the National Investigating Agency (NIA) as to the involvement of radical Islamic organisations and their funding by some foreign universities to Islamise India.

"There are other incoherent prayers. This petitioner opposes the case of students who desire to wear Hijab. Most of the contentions taken up in these petitions are broadly treated in the companion Writ Petitions. We are not inclined to entertain these two Writ Petitions filed in PIL jurisdiction, both on the ground of their maintainability and merits," the judges observed.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
February 1,2026

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.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.