The Karnataka High Court has set aside criminal proceedings initiated against a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) candidate, Chikkavrevanna Ajiappa, who was booked under the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988, for attending a religious ceremony and making political assurances during the Model Code of Conduct period. The single judge bench of Justice Venkatesh Naik T allowed the petition filed by the 2023 assembly election candidate from the Ramdurg constituency.
The prosecution alleged that the petitioner attended the third death anniversary commemoration of Sri Shivayya Swami at the Shree Revayyajjana Mutt in Obalapur village on April 20, 2023. A Flying Squad officer claimed the candidate actively participated in the stage programme and promised to construct a building near a temple after the elections, prompting attendees to raise slogans in his favour. Based on this, a First Information Report was registered invoking Sections 171E (punishment for bribery) and 188 (disobedience to order promulgated by public servant) of the Indian Penal Code, alongside Sections 3, 6, and 7 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988.
Does Section 3 of the Religious Institutions Act apply to a politician speaking at a Mutt event?
No. The Karnataka High Court held that Section 3 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988, expressly restricts the 'person in control' of a religious institution from allowing the premises to be used for political activity. The provision does not refer to the person using the premises for prohibited purposes. Consequently, a politician attending an event and making a speech cannot be prosecuted under Section 3; any action for misuse lies against the manager or person in charge of the institution.
Counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Suraj S Mutnal, submitted that Section 3 applies exclusively to the religious institution or its manager. Since the petitioner was neither a manager nor an official of the Mutt, the Act could not be invoked against him for the speech delivered. The Court accepted this interpretation, clarifying that the statutory language targets the authority permitting the use of the premises, not the speaker.
The bench observed that if any speech violates a separate penal provision, action may be taken under that specific law. However, Section 3 of the 1988 Act does not provide for proceedings against the speech-maker. The Court inferred that the concerned authority could have initiated action against the manager of the Mutt for allowing the premises to be used for political activities, but not against the petitioner.
Bribery charge under Section 171E IPC dismissed for absence of gratification
With the charges under the Religious Institutions Act quashed, the only remaining offence was under Section 171E of the IPC, which is a non-cognizable offence. The Court noted that because the FIR originally included cognizable offences under the Religious Institutions Act, the police were required to follow the procedure under Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates a Magistrate's order for investigating non-cognizable offences. This procedure was not followed.
On the merits of the bribery allegation, the Court ruled that merely making a speech or attending a religious event does not constitute the offence of bribery. Relying on a judgment of a coordinate bench in Criminal Petition No. 1560 of 2024, the bench stated that to attract Section 171E, there must be an act of giving or offering gratification as a reward for exercising an electoral right. A promise to construct a public building after elections, made during a speech, does not meet the statutory definition of gratification under the provision.
Comparative overview of statutory provisions invoked
Provision | Nature of Offence | Applicability to Petitioner | Court's Finding |
|---|---|---|---|
Section 3, Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 | Cognizable | Person in control of institution | Does not apply to speaker; targets manager permitting political use |
Section 171E, Indian Penal Code (Bribery) | Non-cognizable | Person giving/offering gratification for electoral right | No gratification offered to voters; mere speech insufficient |
Section 188, Indian Penal Code (Disobedience) | Cognizable | Person disobeying public servant's order | Not specifically addressed after primary charges quashed |
The Court allowed the petition and quashed the entire proceedings against the candidate. Liberty was reserved for the police to initiate appropriate action against the religious institution, its manager, or persons in charge of the Mutt for allowing the premises to be used for political activities in violation of the Act.