Karnataka HC Temporarily Restrains Action Against CT Ravi
The Karnataka High Court provided interim relief to BJP MLC CT Ravi on Monday by instructing the State government not to take any coercive measures against him. This directive is in relation to a First Information Report (FIR) filed concerning Ravi’s purported derogatory comments about Muslims during a demonstration related to the NEET exam dispute.
Justice M Nagaprasanna Questions FIR Basis
During the petition hearing, Justice M Nagaprasanna challenged the grounds for the prosecution and questioned the specifics of Ravi’s speech. The court sought clarity on the content and target of the alleged remarks. In a verbal exchange, Justice Nagaprasanna inquired, “What did you say? Against whom did you make the statement? Did you ask it (FIR Copy) in simple language or in an upper voice? Get the transcript,” indicating the need for further details.
Allegations Against CT Ravi
The prosecution claims that on July 23, 2026, Ravi addressed a public assembly at Azad Park following a Youth for Nation rally in Chikkamagaluru. The complaint accuses Ravi of commenting, “Mullas (Maulvis) had no connection with the NEET examination,” questioning their involvement in the protests. Ravi allegedly remarked that “Mullas could not even write three letters, yet were demanding the resignation of the Education Minister and the Prime Minister.” He is also said to have linked the Citizenship Amendment Act and the National Register of Citizens with the NEET question paper leak controversy, suggesting misuse of student protests by anti-national elements.
Legal Arguments Presented in Court
In defense, Senior Advocate M Arun Shyam contended that Ravi’s speech was contextually related to the NEET protest and did not intend to offend any religious sentiments. Shyam emphasized that the complainant was a third party, and Ravi was not given a copy of the FIR before the police attempted to serve notice. “The allegation is only that he spoke at a public meeting. The police came with a notice without serving the FIR. It is my right to get a copy of the FIR. He asked for details of the case, after which the officers went back,” Shyam argued.
State Prosecution’s Counterarguments
State Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesh opposed the plea, bringing up another incident where Ravi allegedly gathered supporters and conducted an informal court proceeding against police officers serving a notice. The prosecution sought to present a video recording of this incident to the Court.
More Read
Next Steps in Legal Proceedings
After considering the arguments, the Court instructed the High Court Government Pleader to accept notice and requested the State Public Prosecutor to formally participate in the case. The High Court has ordered that no coercive actions be taken against CT Ravi until the next hearing, scheduled for Friday.
