'Debate On Reservation Cannot Become A Crime': Karnataka High Court Stays Proceedings Against Public TV Anchor

The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna took note of the transcript of the debate and the settled legal position in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of UP (1997), which protects speech in the course of genuine debate.

The court has issued emergent notice to Respondent No. 2 (the complainant), returnable by August 28.

“…a program telecast on Public TV called Big Bulletin has landed the news anchor under the dragnet of crime for offences under 196(1) 353 and 353(2) of BNS ... It was a debate going on in which the participants had spoken with regards to reservation. This cannot become a crime under any of the section by the too well settled principle of law in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. UP(1997). In that light, there shall be an interim order of stay on further proceedings qua the petitioner till the next date of hearing. …”, the court noted in the order.

For further context, the Supreme Court in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of UP held that the mere expression of opinion or criticism of a policy does not amount to promoting enmity under Section 153A IPC (corresponding to Section 196 BNS).

The matter will be heard next on August 28, 2026.

Advocate Girish Bharadwaj appeared for the petitioner-journalist.

Badiger, a reporter with Public TV, was booked by the Nelamangala Rural Police Station for offences punishable under Section 196(1) BNS (promoting enmity between different groups), Section 353(1) BNS (making statements causing public alarm) and Section 353(2) BNS (promoting enmity through rumour or alarming news)

The FIR was registered on August 12, 2026, based on a complaint filed by one Ananthakumar D R, followed by a preliminary enquiry.

In the plea, it is stated that the petitioner anchored and moderated 'Big Bulletin', a news-based panel discussion telecast on July 25, 2026, concerning the Delhi Students Protest. During the programme, the subject of reservation in education and public employment came to be discussed.

The complaint alleged that Badiger made the following statements:

“What limitations should be placed on it? What is the situation of the students? What kind of education do the poor get? If a person who studied under reservation and got 50-60 percent marks, but then went under reservation and had to teach as a teacher, what did the students learn?”

“…If tomorrow in the same subject in education, all those who have scored 50-60% go up and get different promotions under reservation, what will happen to the jobs?.... No one has even heard the people who raised their voices on this issue and shouted for changes in the education system."

As per the complainant in the FIR, these statements 'generalized and questioned the capabilities, qualifications and standards' of beneficiaries of the reservation system, and were 'likely to create negative perceptions and prejudices among the public'.

The petitioner, in his FIR quashing plea, submits that the statements were made in the course of moderating a debate and were 'interrogative remarks' directed at policy outcomes, not at persons or communities.

“Mens rea is a necessary and irreducible ingredient, and is wholly absent. Intention to cause disorder or to incite people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence”,  the petition states.

The petition further argues that criticism of a state policy could not be made an offence:

“…The reservation policy is a policy of the State. Every citizen has a right to criticise, question and even disapprove of a decision or policy of the State, and such criticism cannot be construed as promoting enmity. To hold otherwise would mean that no debate on any affirmative-action question could ever be conducted in this country without inviting prosecution, which is a proposition wholly destructive of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution….”, the plea adds.

Case Title: Sri Arunkumar Badiger v. State of Karnataka & Anr. 

Case No: Crl P. 12405/2026