Senior Advocate Arun Shyam, appearing for Ravikumar, argued that the FIR had been filed based on a complaint lodged by a political party, even before the officer in question had submitted a formal complaint.
Published Jul 04, 2025 | 8:21 PM ⚊ Updated Jul 04, 2025 | 8:21 PM
Synopsis: The Karnataka High Court on Friday heard BJP MLC N Ravikumar’s plea to quash an FIR filed against him over his alleged derogatory remarks against State Chief Secretary Dr Shalini Rajneesh. The court restrained any precipitative action against Ravikumar until Tuesday, while directing him to cooperate with the investigation.
The Karnataka High Court on Friday, 4 July, heard a petition filed by BJP MLC N Ravikumar seeking to quash an FIR registered against him for allegedly making derogatory and vulgar remarks about State Chief Secretary Dr Shalini Rajneesh.
After hearing arguments from the petitioner and the public prosecution, the court issued notice to the respondents, returnable by Tuesday, and directed that no precipitative action be taken against the petitioner until then, LiveLaw reported.
However, the court instructed the BJP leader to cooperate with the ongoing investigation.
Ravikumar has faced sharp criticism after a video surfaced on Thursday showing him making a derogatory comment about Dr Rajneesh during a protest near Vidhana Soudha.
The remark was made on 1 July while Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council, Chalavadi Narayanaswamy, was seen speaking to a Deputy Commissioner of Police near the Gandhi statue, where BJP leaders had gathered for a planned protest.
His comment – delivered with a smirk – “The Chief Secretary works at night for the state government and all day for the CM” was caught on camera and drew immediate backlash from political circles and civil society.
Senior Advocate Arun Shyam, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the FIR had been filed based on a complaint lodged by a political party, even before the officer in question had submitted a formal complaint.
“We have issued a clarification on the video clipping,” he told the court.
Special Public Prosecutor Belliappa, appearing for the state, opposed the plea to quash the FIR, stating that the law had already been set into motion.
“All lady IAS officers are up in arms. He is in the habit of making such statements. Law has been set into motion and there is a TV report. Her (complainant’s) statement will be recorded and even the victims’,” he said.
He further contended that although the complaint was based on a televised news report, it warranted investigation. “If the lordships stay the investigation, the court is staying the hands of the victim,” he added, insisting the case involved cognisable offences and should not be stayed at this stage.
In response, Advocate Shyam pointed out, “The victim has not given the complaint.”
However, SPP Belliappa noted that the petitioner had also sought anticipatory bail simultaneously, stating, “He cannot seek relief here. Morale of police will go down if this is allowed like this.”
Following the hearing, the court observed, “Politicians are going to a new low.”
The FIR was registered in response to a complaint filed by the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) with the Vidhana Soudha police, accusing N Ravikumar and Chalavadi Narayanaswamy of using “unparliamentary and indecent language” against a senior woman bureaucrat in the presence of police officers.
The complaint, signed by KPCC General Secretary S Manohar, demanded immediate registration of a case against Ravikumar and a full investigation into the incident.
This is not the first time Ravikumar has drawn criticism for his comments about government officials.
Just five weeks ago, during the BJP’s ‘Kalaburagi Chalo’ rally, he publicly questioned the nationality of Kalaburagi Deputy Commissioner Fauzia Tarannum, stating, “I don’t know whether the IAS officer is from Pakistan or from here.”
The remark was widely condemned as offensive and xenophobic, prompting strong reactions on social media and from civil society.
The IAS Officers’ Association, Karnataka, has condemned Ravikumar’s remarks, calling them “vulgar, defamatory, and a direct affront to the dignity of her office and the larger civil service.”
Alongside demanding a public and unconditional apology from Ravikumar, the Association urged the government to initiate legal proceedings under relevant provisions of law.
It also called for a formal resolution of censure in the Legislative Council.
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
