The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday directed that no coercive steps be taken against noted playback singer Sonu Nigam in connection with a criminal case registered against him for allegedly making offensive remarks during a recent concert. The court also permitted Nigam to appear via video conferencing for recording his statement, if required by the investigating officer (IO).
Justice [Name not specified in the source] passed the interim order while hearing a plea filed by Nigam seeking protection from coercive action in a case registered under Section 505 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for alleged public mischief.
The criminal case stems from a complaint filed after an incident at a concert where some Kannadiga fans had requested the singer to perform a song in Kannada. Nigam allegedly took offence to the manner of the request and made a controversial remark reportedly stating, “This is why Pahalgam happened,” in apparent reference to the April 22 terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir. The statement triggered a backlash and led to a complaint being registered by a third party.
Appearing for Nigam, advocate Dhananjay Vidyapati contended that the FIR was frivolous and filed for publicity. He argued that the incident was isolated, the event continued without disruption, and no case of public mischief was made out under Section 505 IPC. He also emphasized that the complainant had no direct connection with the incident.
The State, however, opposed any relaxation in procedural requirements. The government counsel submitted that Nigam had failed to cooperate with the investigation and had not communicated any reason for non-appearance. “He could have at least said he was busy,” the counsel argued.
Further objecting to the singer being given any leniency, the State said: “A person who does not respect due process of law cannot be given benefit under Section 482 CrPC… He is not a normal man, but that is precisely why he should not have made such a statement.”
Addressing the concerns over media scrutiny raised by Nigam’s counsel regarding a physical appearance, the court offered a practical alternative. It observed: “If you want physical appearance, you go to his place and record his statement. He could bear the expenses.”
The court allowed the investigating officer to visit the singer if a physical appearance was deemed necessary, clarifying that the cost of such an arrangement would be borne by Nigam.
Recording the State’s submission that no coercive action would be initiated if Nigam cooperated with the investigation, the court directed that no final report be filed in the matter until the next date of hearing. The timeline for the next hearing has not been specified in the available information.
