- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2192 WP No. 19382 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 19382 OF 2023 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: 1. SRI SHEENAPPA S/O SRI ANGARA MOOLYA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS REGIONAL DIRECTOR SRI KSHETRA DHARMASHTALA RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT(R) B C TRUST NO.43, 44, M S RAMAIAH LAYOUT BEHIND PATIDARA SAMAJA NAGASANDRA POST BENGALURU-560073 2. SRI NANDEESH KUMAR JAIN S/O NIRMALA KUMAR B AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/A NO.404, VAISHNAVI PRIME ANDREW ROAD, RICHMOND TOWN BENGALURU-560027 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA., SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001 Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2192 WP No. 19382 of 2023 2. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560001 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU-560001 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT S P OFFICE, MANGALURU-575001 6. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BANTWAL SUB DIVISION BANTWAL MARKET ROAD BANTWAL TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574219 7. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER BELTHANGADY POLICE STATION BELTHANGADY TALUK DK DISTRICT-574214 8. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER DHARMASTHALA POLICE STATION BELTHANGADY TALUK DK DISTRICT-574216 9. SRI MAHESH SHETTY @ RAVI @ MAHESH THIMMARDOI S/O VITTAL SHETTY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A THIMMARODI HOUSE - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2192 WP No. 19382 of 2023 UJIRE VILLAGE BELTHANGADY TALUK DK DISTRICT-574240 ALSO AT KUNJARPPA HOUSE RATHA BEDDI, UJIRE BELTHANGADY TALUK DK DISTRICT-574240 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.KIRAN V RON., AAG A/W SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK., HCGP FOR R1 TO R8 SRI. I.THARANATH POOJARY., SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. ROHITH URSD., ADVOCATE FOR R9) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R3 TO 8 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 05/08/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS AND TO TAKE SUITABLE ACTION VIDE ANNEXURES-A TO F AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The 1st petitioner claiming to be an employee of Sri Kshetra Dharmasthala Rural Development Project (for short ‘SKDRDP’) and the 2nd petitioner, a family member of Padma Vibhushana Dr.D.Veereendra Heggade are before this Court seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondents police to consider their representations dated 05.08.2023 and take suitable action in terms of the prayer - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2192 WP No. 19382 of 2023 made therein. The petitioners are also seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondents police and the State to take action in accordance with law to conduct investigation in connection with Special C.C.No.203/2016 on the file of the Special Court, City Civil Judge at Bengaluru; to direct the respondents police to take suitable action against respondent No.9 for violating the orders passed by the Courts of law and for having made reckless, baseless and scandalous allegations against the judiciary and judges. 2. At the threshold, learned Senior Counsel Sri Udaya Holla, appearing for the petitioners submitted that prayer (b) has become infructuous in view of the action taken by the respondents police. 3. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that certain directions were issued by the learned City Civil Judge in O.S.No.4527/2023, directing respondent No.9 herein and the defendants therein inter alia not to further transmit the videos specified in the schedule against the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2192 WP No. 19382 of 2023 institution, head of the institution and his family members on the basis of false, fabricated and concocted stories prepared or edited by the defendants, as claimed by the plaintiffs in I.A.No.1/2023 till the next date of hearing; temporarily injuncting the defendants from making/telecasting/publishing/circulating/forwarding/uploa ding/ transmitting/ sharing any false, baseless, reckless allegations against the institution, head of the institution Padma Vibhushana Dr.D.Veereendra Heggade, and his family members on the basis of false, fabricated and concocted stories prepared or edited by defendants, as claimed by the petitioners in I.A.No.2/2023, injuncting the defendants therein by an order of temporary injunction from approaching any media platforms/publishing houses by making false, baseless, reckless allegations against the head of the institution Padma Vibhushana Dr.D.Veerendra Heggade or his family members or his institutions or organizations or Sri Manjunathaswamy Temple, Dharmasthala by making false, baseless, frivolous, reckless allegations in the pretext of discussing the case - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2192 WP No. 19382 of 2023 relating to Spl.CC No.203/2016 on the file of the CBI Court, Bangalore as claimed by the plaintiffs in I.A.No.3/2023, till the next date of hearing and further having regard to the violation of such interim orders passed by the learned City Civil Judge, contempt proceedings were initiated before the Hon’ble Division Bench by some other persons. 4. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that despite all these directions and despite the matter being considered at the hands of the Hon’ble Divison Bench in the contempt petition, the reckless conduct of the 9th respondent continues unabated. In that regard, it is submitted that I.A.No.4/2024 has been filed by the petitioners seeking appropriate directions to the respondents/police not to grant any permission/licence so as to enable the respondent No.9 to conduct any public events/function in the name and style of “Justice for Sowjanya” or by any other name and grant such other further reliefs as this court may deem fit. Learned Senior - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2192 WP No. 19382 of 2023 Counsel submits that along with the application a Pen- drive has been submitted before this Court containing the reckless speech and statements made by the 9th respondent against the judiciary in general and the judges in particular. 5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. I. Tharanath Poojary, appearing for the 9th respondent submits that during the pendency of the contempt petition, this issue was raised by the petitioners and the same was considered by the Hon’ble Division Bench in CCC No.304/2020. The 9th respondent tendered an unconditional apology on 11.01.2024 and the Hon’ble Division Bench accepted the apology and closed the allegations of contempt of court on that score in terms of the order dated 05.06.2024. The learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit that the prayer made in I.A.No.4/2024 need not be considered, having regard to the fact that the Hon’ble Division Bench has already accepted the unconditional apology tendered by the 9th respondent herein. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2192 WP No. 19382 of 2023 6. During the course of these proceedings, this Court had indicated to the 9th respondent that merely by contending that his right of speech should not be violated or curtailed, 9th respondent cannot seek to go on making statement in the public and in the streets, undermining the dignity of any individual. This Court had indicated to the 9th respondent that it is open for him to get redressal in a manner known to law, even if any action on the part of an individual had in any manner affected the rights of the 9th respondent or if he seeks to espouse a public cause, he could take action only in a manner known to law and he cannot go to the streets and go on making reckless statement even against private individuals. And in that regard this Court gave an opportunity to the 9th respondent to file a statement before this Court saying that he will not indulge in such activities in future. However, today learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 9th respondent has filed an affidavit of the 9th respondent pointing out to the issue regarding the statement made by the 9th respondent against the judiciary and the judges - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2192 WP No. 19382 of 2023 and that the Hon’ble Division Bench accepted the unconditional apology tendered by the 9th respondent, in its order dated 05.06.2024. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that 9th respondent has clearly stated in the affidavit that he will not in future make any such derogatory statement in respect of the judiciary or the Hon’ble Judges. However, insofar as the indication given by this Court on the previous date of hearing, the 9th respondent is not ready to make any statement regarding his right to go into the public and make any statement or derogatory remarks against a private individual. 7. In this background, this Court has heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners; learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 9th respondent, the learned Additional Advocate General and this Court proceeds to consider the case for final disposal. 8. Having regard to the admitted fact that the agitation in the beginning had commenced on account of the murder of one Soujanya and a forum known as - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:2192 WP No. 19382 of 2023 “Justice for Soujanaya” was formed and in that regard certain statements were made in public by many persons including the 9th respondent. The 1st petitioner being an employee of SKDRDP and the 2nd petitioner being a member of the family of Sri Veerendra Heggade, Dharmadhikari of Shri Dharmasthala Temple are before this Court seeking certain directions to the respondents police to take note of the conduct of the 9th respondent and all such persons, who are said to have organized public agitations, created platforms and have made public speeches and statement which has cast a great deal of anxiety and anguish to the followers of the Sri Dharmasthala Manjunatha temple and workers of many of the projects taken up by Sri Veerendra Heggade. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted before this Court that the 9th respondent should be stopped from making such derogatory statements against an individual who has certain respect in the society. It is submitted that the 9th respondent cannot claim to have an absolute right to speech and therefore go before the public - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:2192 WP No. 19382 of 2023 and go on making such derogatory remarks against a private individuals. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that there cannot be any absolute right that the 9th respondent can claim to enable him to go on making such derogatory statements in the open public, even if he is aggrieved of any action on the part of Dr.Veerendra Heggade or his family members or of the institution or the projects taken up by the said individual and his family members. If at all, the 9th respondent is aggrieved of any such action, it will be open for him to take action in accordance with law and by merely stating that he has a right to speech, he should not be permitted to make derogatory remarks in open public platforms or to publish any such derogatory remarks. In that regard, it is submitted that petitioners are before this Court seeking suitable directions to the respondent police. 9. A constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kaushal Kishor Vs. State of U.P. (2023) 4 SCC (1) has held that dignity is the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:2192 WP No. 19382 of 2023 quintessential quality of personality and a basic constituent of the rights guaranteed and protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Dignity is a part of the individual rights that form the fundamental fulcrum of collective harmony and interest of a society. That while the right to speech and expression is absolutely sacrosanct, dignity as a part of Article 21 has its own significance. That dignity of an individual cannot be overridden and blotched by malice and vile and venal attacks to tarnish and destroy the reputation of another by stating that the same curbs and puts unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression. It was therefore held that having regard to the unequivocal declaration of the Apex Court, to the fact that Article 21 could not be sacrificed at the altar of securing the widest amplitude of free speech rights, this premise can serve as a theoretical justification for prescribing restraints on derogatory and disparaging speech. Human dignity, being a primary element under the protective umbrella of Article 21, cannot be negatively altered on account of derogatory - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:2192 WP No. 19382 of 2023 speech, which marks out persons as unequal and vilifies them leading to indignity. The right to protect the dignity of an individual is therefore placed on a higher pedestal than the right to speech. 10. Reference is also made to Section 117 of the Indian Penal Code (the corresponding provision can be found at Section 57 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and the Hon’ble Apex Court has singled out this provision, as a provision protecting the interest of an individual. The provision prescribes punishment for any person who abets the commission of an offence sought to be perpetrated against any individual in the Society. 11. Having regard to the facts and statements narrated herein above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners herein have a right to seek such directions to the respondent police. The respondent police are required to take action in accordance with law if they find that the 9th respondent or his followers or any person makes any statement in the open public or - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:2192 WP No. 19382 of 2023 publishes any such derogatory statement, which is an offence in accordance with law and in that regard, if any material is placed by the petitioners or any person aggrieved of any such action on the part of the 9th respondent or his followers, and if such information is placed before the police, it is the bounden duty of the respondents police to take action immediately, in accordance with law. 12. 12. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE KLY CT: JL