The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (September 24) refused to grant interim relief for now to BJP leader Pratap Simha who has challenged an FIR lodged under SC/ST Act in connection with a speech he gave during a Ganesha Visarjan procession over allegations of insulting the Dalit community with a remark about a "blue shawl". 

The complaint alleges that during his speech during the same procession, the petitioner insulted the Dalit community by referring to individuals and Dalit activists wearing blue shawls as coming only for their livelihood, asking them to 'read Ambedkar first'. The FIR also accuses the politician of calling Dalit office-bearers 'agitators' for money. It also alleges that he referred to the caste of the police officer against whom he was allegedly speaking to in the prior FIR.

Simha has also challenged another FIR lodged suo-motu against him. 

The single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde while hearing the plea challenging FIR under SC/ST Act asked the State to file its response to the plea and listed it on September 28. 

With respect to the petition challenging the suo-motu FIR registered against the petitioner with respect to assault on a public servant as well as promoting enmity between communities, the court noted the State Public Prosecutor's submission that till the next date of hearing, charge sheet will not be filed and listed the matter on September 29. 

The petitions challenge the legality of both crimes, arguing that the FIRs are motivated by political pressure.

The pleas claim that the petitioner participated in the annual Gowri-Ganesha festival procession at T. Narasipura, on the evening of September 18. The procession was conducted with police permission and bandobast.

According to the plea, prior to the procession, a police officer had allegedly made derogatory remarks against the devotees. The plea alleges that the remark was about an instance if the procession were to pass through in front of a mosque. This, according to the petition, agitated the devotees.

At this point, the plea claims, that the petitioner spoke against the inspector from the procession vehicle. According to the petitioner, the remarks were pointed at the indecent conduct of the police and not against any religion or community.

The first FIR was registered suo motu by the T. Narasipura Police Station on September 20. The petition states that the report was based on an examination of social media videos and a transcript prepared by another police constable. The FIR so registered invoked BNS Sections 132 (assault on public servant), 191 (rioting), 194 (affray), 196 (promoting enmity), and 353 (public mischief).

The petitioner argued that that there is no allegation of any assault, criminal force, or gesture against any public servant in the FIR. He further stated that 'mere words' do not amount to assault, and the procession concluded peacefully under police supervision.

It was further stated that a religious procession conducted usually annually with police permission is a lawful assembly. It argues there was no unlawful assembly, no common object as defined under law, and no force or violence. It was also submitted that the speech was addressed to the police, and no religion or community was named or targeted.

According to the second petition, four days after the speech and the event, on September 22, 2026, a second FIR was registered based on a complaint by the President of a local association. This FIR invoked Sections 352 (intentional insult) and 356 (defamation) of the BNS, along with the charges under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Assailing the said FIR, before the High Court, the petitioner argues that Section 3(1)(r) requires an intentional insult to a member of a Scheduled Caste on the ground of their caste in public view. It contends that the complaint does not identify a single member of a Scheduled Caste who was insulted, the complainant does not claim to be a victim, and the 'blue shawl' is a symbol of a movement, not a caste. It also argues that the words attributed to the petitioner contained no caste name or slur.

The plea argues that criticizing a set of activists cannot be equated with promoting hatred against the Scheduled Castes as a class, and hence Section 3(1) (u) is not attracted. It is also claimed that under Section 222 BNSS, a court can take cognizance of defamation only upon a complaint by the aggrieved person.

The plea contends that an imputation against indeterminate body like 'Dalit organizations' is not defamation of an identifiable person. It was argues that the police's own verbatim transcript of the speech in the first FIR contains no reference to the 'blue shawl' remark, Dr. B R Ambedkar, or in turn, Dalit organizations.

Case Title: Prathap Simha v. State of Karnataka & Anr. and another petition 

Case No: CRL.P 14747/2026 & CRL.P NO. 14769/2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order In CRL.P 14747/2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order In CRL.P NO. 14769/2026