Karnataka High Court Dismisses Case Against NRI Student Over Instagram Post
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the criminal case against a non-resident Indian (NRI) student who faced charges for posting offensive content on Instagram about the late Kannada film actor, Puneeth Rajkumar. The case, Ritvik S Sharma v State of Karnataka, was presided over by Justice Suraj Govindaraj.
Justice Govindaraj, while expressing disapproval of the student’s actions, acknowledged the potential negative impact continued legal proceedings could have on the student’s future and career. Despite the nature of the post, the court opted for leniency, deciding to quash the case.
The incident in question occurred in 2021 following the death of Puneeth Rajkumar on October 29. The student had posted an image on Instagram of a Kingfisher beer bottle with a caption that included derogatory language referencing Rajkumar, coinciding with a temporary ban on liquor sales in Bengaluru.
During the proceedings, Justice Govindaraj questioned the appropriateness of the post, particularly given its timing shortly after the actor’s passing. The court emphasized the importance of considering the context and timing of such statements.
The student’s defense argued that the name ‘Rajkumar’ was not exclusive to the actor and claimed the post may have been made by the student’s friends. However, Justice Govindaraj dismissed these arguments, highlighting the specific context in which the name was used.
The student’s counsel appealed for leniency, highlighting the student’s background, including his upbringing in London and recent relocation to India for his undergraduate studies in economics. The counsel warned of the detrimental effects that prolonged legal action could have on the student’s academic and professional future.
Taking these factors into account, the court agreed to quash the proceedings, issuing a stern warning to the student. Justice Govindaraj concluded, “This Court is of the opinion that leniency would have to be shown to the petitioner by warning him and directing the counsel for the petitioner to advise him accordingly.” Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the case was dismissed with the court’s observations.
Advocate Padmavathi N represented the State in this matter.
