Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against Students and Faculty Over Skit Performance at University Event
Safiya Malik
The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against students and faculty members of Jain University, Bengaluru, in connection with a skit performed during a university cultural festival. The Bench, of Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar, held that the essential ingredients of the alleged offenses under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Indian Penal Code, 1860, were not met.
The petitions arose from a complaint lodged against the petitioners, who included students and faculty of Jain University’s Centre for Management Studies. The complaint alleged that during the university’s youth festival held at the NIMHANS Convention Centre, Bengaluru, a skit performed by the students contained elements that were offensive and discriminatory towards certain communities. Based on this complaint, an FIR was registered against the petitioners under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, along with Sections 153A, 149, and 295A of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR and related criminal proceedings, contending that the performance was intended purely for entertainment and satire and was not meant to cause harm or insult any community. It was submitted that there was no material on record to indicate any specific intention to humiliate or intimidate individuals belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. The petitioners further argued that their actions were protected under Article 19 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
The State opposed the petitions, contending that the content of the skit had been found offensive and that the complaint had been registered based on legitimate concerns. The prosecution argued that the performance had the potential to incite enmity between groups and that the matter required further investigation.
Also Read: https://24law.in/story/supreme-court-upholds-bar-on-suit-by-unregistered-law-firm-against-client
The High Court, after examining the materials on record, observed that "the necessary ingredients constituting the aforesaid offences are conspicuously absent, especially when the said skit/short play was done for mere entertainment purposes and not with any intention to harm or humiliate any community or race nor make any reference to a particular religion or religious belief." The Court further recorded that the FIR was not lodged by a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, and there was no material to indicate that the petitioners had the intent to insult or intimidate any individual based on caste.
The judgment referred to previous decisions, including Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, where the Supreme Court held that an allegation under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act must specifically indicate that the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and that the accused had acted with the requisite intent to humiliate them. The Court noted that "the skit performed by the petitioners was in the nature of satire and entertainment, which is constitutionally protected under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, and the impugned FIR clearly does not meet or satisfy the basic ingredients of the offences alleged."
In its examination of Section 153A IPC, which deals with promoting enmity between different groups, the Court recorded that there was no evidence to show that the performance was intended to create disharmony or incite hatred. Similarly, with respect to Section 295A IPC, which pertains to deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings, the Court found that the performance did not make any reference to religious beliefs or practices. "A mere reference or satirical depiction without the intention to outrage religious sentiments cannot constitute an offense under Section 295A IPC," the Court stated.
The Court also referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Indibly Creative (P) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, which emphasized the significance of satire in public discourse. The judgment recorded that "satire and irony are willing allies of the quest to entertain while at the same time leading to self-reflection. The right to free speech and expression is a fundamental aspect of a democratic society, and courts must carefully assess whether criminal prosecution is justified in cases involving artistic expression."
After reviewing the allegations, the Court concluded that the criminal proceedings were not sustainable. Accordingly, the Court issued the following order:
"(i) Both Crl.P.No.2845/2023 and Crl.P.No.2064/2023 are hereby allowed.
(ii) All further proceedings pursuant to Crime No.32/2023 registered by the 1st respondent – Police, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 153-A, 149 and 295-A of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) and (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pending on the file of LXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, insofar as the petitioners are concerned are hereby quashed."
Case Title: Naima Akthar Nagaria & Ors Vs State of Karnataka & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:891
Case Number: CRL.P No. 2845 of 2023 & CRL.P No. 2064 of 2023
Bench: Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar
[Read/Download order]
