High Court Criticizes Vigilante Justice
The Karnataka High Court has expressed strong disapproval over the violent treatment of a mentally unstable youth, approximately 19 years old, who was accused of desecrating a portrait of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. This reaction from the court followed a disturbing incident in a village in Chamarajanagar where locals took the law into their own hands, stripping the youth, tying him to an electric pole, and beating him. The police intervened to rescue the victim, but not before severe harm was inflicted.
Justice M Nagaprasanna’s Condemnation
In the case identified as Chandru v State of Karnataka, Justice M Nagaprasanna expressed deep concern about how such episodes of violence persist in contemporary society. Criticizing the lack of adherence to legal processes, he stated, “You’ll beat each other up, no good will come of it. This cannot be accepted in a democratic set up at all. Even in the worst of regimes, these things have stopped happening long ago. (But) not in this country.” The judge’s remarks underscore the urgency for law enforcement and societal change in addressing such acts of violence.
Legal Proceedings and Charges
Following the incident, the youth was charged under Sections 299 and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which relate to acts intended to outrage religious feelings and property damage. Additionally, charges were filed under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Represented by his father, due to his mental condition, the youth petitioned the High Court to quash these charges.
Judicial Intervention and Current Status
The High Court, acknowledging the complexities of the case, previously instructed law enforcement to refrain from any coercive measures against the petitioner, while allowing the investigation to proceed. During a recent hearing, the court reviewed photographic evidence of the incident, prompting Justice Nagaprasanna to question the collapse of the rule of law, stating, “The State is in anarchy. There is no rule of law. Nowhere in the world this happens. In a democratic setup this does not happen.”
Critique of Police Conduct
Further complicating the situation, a video presented in court showed a Superintendent of Police (SP) threatening the youth with an externment order and future FIR filings. Justice Nagaprasanna criticized these actions, questioning the SP’s authority to make such threats, “The SP has no business to talk like this, that he has powers to open a rowdy sheeter, powers to extern someone, we will do it. What is this appeasement of this kind?”
More Read
Next Steps
The court has extended interim protection for the youth from any coercive action and demanded a detailed report on the investigation’s progress by the next hearing, scheduled for August 20. Both the original and counter-cases are to be thoroughly investigated, with the State Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesha representing the State’s interests.
