‘Pakistan Zindabad’ or ‘Murdabad’? Karnataka HC Quashes Case, Accepts Slogan May Have Been Uttered By Mistake At BJP Rally

The Karnataka High Court recently observed that it was “highly unimaginable” that protesters participating in a demonstration organised by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) would raise the slogan “Pakistan Zindabad”, accepting a man's contention that the words were uttered inadvertently instead of “Pakistan Murdabad” in the heat of the protest.

The bench of Justice V Srishananda made the observation while quashing criminal proceedings against one D. S. Ravi Kumar accused of raising the slogan during a BJP demonstration in Mandya in December 2022. The case was registered under Sections 153B and 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) [now Section 197 and Section 353(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, respectively].

Court noted that the complainant had approached the police nearly two years after the incident, relying on a video clip published on a YouTube channel. It also found that the investigating agency had failed to gather information about the participants in the demonstration or establish the repercussions of the alleged slogan on society.

“At the outset, in a demonstration organized by the Bharathiya Janatha Party-a Political Party, It is highly unimaginable that the protesters therein would raise the slogan 'Pakistan Zindabad',” court observed.

The petitioner had approached the high court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate at Mandya.

According to the complaint lodged by the second respondent, Kannambadi Kumar, a group of people claiming to be BJP followers had organised a protest on December 18, 2022. During the demonstration, some participants allegedly raised the slogan “Pakistan Zindabad”. The complainant stated that watching the video of the incident had caused him mental distress and sought police action.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Vinod Kumar M argued that the slogan was raised unintentionally and without any intention to create unrest in society or affect any particular community.

He contended that the demonstration was organised by a political party and that, in the flow of raising slogans during the protest, the words “Pakistan Zindabad” had been uttered by mistake instead of “Pakistan Murdabad”.

Opposing the plea, high court Government Pleader Waheeda M.M. submitted that the video clip furnished by the complainant clearly contained the words “Pakistan Zindabad”. She argued that the investigation should be allowed to continue and that the petitioner should face trial.

She also referred to the charge sheet, which stated that the demonstration was organised in response to an objectionable statement made by Pakistan's Foreign Minister. According to the prosecution, the petitioner had raised the slogan to create unrest in society.

Considering the rival submissions, court noted that the complainant had lodged the complaint on the basis of a YouTube video after a lapse of two years from the incident.

It further observed that the investigating agency had not been able to ascertain who had participated in the demonstration or what repercussions the alleged slogan had caused in society, including whether it had resulted in unrest among a particular community or the public at large.

Court also opined that the argument was worth considering that in the flow of raising the slogans by mistake the words Zindabad had crept in instead of Murdhabad.

“Therefore, continuation of the criminal case in the considered opinion of this Court is thus unnecessary and would amounts to abuse of process of law,” court held.

The high court also found a separate legal infirmity in the prosecution concerning the offence under Section 505 of the IPC.

Referring to its earlier decision in K.M. Basha alias Mehaboob Basha v. State of Karnataka (2022), court reiterated that prior government sanction under Section 196(1)(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) [now Section 217(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] was necessary before initiating proceedings for an offence under Section 505 of the IPC.

In the present case, court found that no such prior sanction had been obtained before the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence.

“Therefore, on one hand, ingredients of Section 153 being not attracted, and on the other hand, prior sanction is not obtained for offence under Section 505 of IPC, this Court is constrained to quash the pending criminal proceedings,” it held.

Allowing the writ petition, the high court quashed the proceedings.

Case Title: D.S. Ravi Kumar v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Order Date: October 28, 2026

Bench: Justice V Srishananda