Karnataka HC: No Bail For Prajwal Revanna; PIL Against Rahul Gandhi Over His Comments Against The Leader Dismissed

The Karnataka High Court (HC) on Friday rejected the bail and anticipatory bail applications filed by suspended Janata Dal (S) leader Prajwal Revanna, who is accused of rape and sexual assault. The HC also dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking legal action against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for his alleged comments against former Hassan MP Prajwal during a Lok Sabha campaign speech in Karnataka earlier this year.

The All India Dalit Action Committee had filed the PIL, requesting the court to direct Gandhi to issue an unconditional apology to women for his statements, and disrespecting the Constitution. The petition claimed that Gandhi made the remarks on May 2 during election rallies in Shivamogga and Raichur, just prior to the polls on May 7, 2024.

The bench stated that the court must uphold a standard when determining whether a matter qualifies as a public interest issue, noting that not every grievance can be raised in court via a PIL. They acknowledged that Gandhi’s remarks, while potentially controversial, do not meet the criteria for a PIL.

In dismissing the case, the court reiterated the importance of careful consideration regarding what constitutes a public interest issue, affirming its discretion in handling such petitions.

Additionally, a fine of Rs 25,000 was imposed on the petitioner while dismissing the case.

The counsel representing the All India Dalit Action Committee argued that Gandhi’s statements outraged the modesty of women and constituted fabricated accusations against Revanna. They contended that such speeches were damaging in a small town like Hassan, creating mistrust among households.

They sought the court to impose a token fine on Gandhi for the supposed misuse of his public position, breach of public trust, and violations of various legal provisions, including the Model Code of Conduct for the 2024 Parliamentary elections and the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

During the hearing, the bench, consisting of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind, indicated that the case did not qualify as a public interest litigation. The court stated, “We have not said anything on the merits; we are not saying anything on the merits of the speech. We have only said this cannot be the subject matter under public interest litigation,” according to Live Law.