The Karnataka High Court on Monday halted the police investigation into two criminal cases filed against a law student over a social media post he published following the murder of a 21-year-old nurse in Bantwal.
Justice M Nagaprasanna issued an interim order staying the investigation against the student, Kiran Aradhya. The court issued a notice to the state government and scheduled the next hearing for August 7.
In his ruling, Justice Nagaprasanna stated that he would have allowed the investigation to proceed had there been any indication of animosity toward any religion, group, or entity that could incite communal hatred. The judge noted that the student did not intend to glorify or celebrate the murder and remarked that the public should avoid oversensitivity regarding such incidents.
Aradhya was booked by the police on July 18 under charges of making statements conducive to public mischief and wanton provocation for rioting. The FIR was registered following two complaints regarding an online post he uploaded to the platform X on July 17.
The online post followed the July 16 murder of Lavanya Gowda, a nurse at a private clinic, who was hacked to death with a machete at a state bus depot in Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada district. Her distant relative, 22-year-old Chethan G, allegedly killed her after she repeatedly rejected his demands for a relationship.
Defense Cites Social Media Targeting
Aradhya was represented by advocate and Bangalore South BJP MP Tejasvi Surya, who argued that individuals who post actively on social media are being selectively targeted.
Surya pointed out that even the complainant acknowledged that Aradhya’s post made no reference to any religious community. He contended that filing an FIR under these circumstances turned the legal process itself into a form of harassment and punishment.
State Cites Volatile Local Context
Opposing the stay petition, Special Public Prosecutor B N Jagadeesha argued that the FIR was justified given the sensitive and communally charged atmosphere of the coastal region.
Jagadeesha stated that social media posts published immediately after a murder, before the details are fully known, risk inflaming local tensions. He argued that public restraint is necessary in such situations and noted that the police would have filed a closure report if their investigation found no evidence of wrongdoing against the student, who had approached the court before being served a formal police notice.
In response, Surya argued that individual statements should not be judged solely based on geographical context.
Justice Nagaprasanna questioned the state’s prosecution strategy, describing the alleged provocative nature of the tweet as incomprehensible. The judge remarked that if the state is intent on manufacturing a controversy where even the original complainant saw none, the investigating agency’s own actions could be viewed as promoting enmity between groups.
