Karnataka High Court Overturns Trial Court Order in Defamation Case Against Former VC
The Karnataka High Court has delivered a significant ruling by quashing a trial court order that had referred a defamation complaint against Professor Niranjana, the former Vice-Chancellor of Bangalore North University, to the police for investigation. The High Court has also set aside the subsequent registration of a crime based on that order, citing procedural inadequacy and legal principles.
Background of the Case
The complaint was filed by R Manjunatha, a part-time guest lecturer in the journalism department at Bangalore North University. Based on his allegations, a special court referred the matter to the Gulpet police for investigation on June 4, 2025. Just two days later, on June 6, 2025, a crime was registered against Prof Niranjana. The charges invoked included offences under Sections 3(1)(q) and (u) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as well as Section 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
Arguments Presented in Court
Challenging the proceedings, Prof Niranjana argued that none of the allegations satisfied the offences invoked against him. He contended that R Manjunatha was terminated from service based on a syndicate resolution, and this could not result in a counterblast leading to a crime being registered against him. On the other hand, R Manjunatha submitted that as a co-employee, he had complained about the Vice-Chancellor's misbehaviour, and for that, his services were terminated.
High Court's Legal Analysis
After perusing the materials on record, Justice Nagaprasanna highlighted two key legal issues. First, the judge noted that if the issue is one of defamation, the court concerned could not have directed an investigation to be conducted by the police. It is a settled principle of law that when defamation is involved, even if it is part of other offences, there cannot be a police investigation because a defamation case is essentially between two individuals or entities.
Second, Justice Nagaprasanna pointed out a procedural snag. In light of the procedure prescribed under Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which deals with private complaints, the court ought to have heard the accused prior to taking cognisance of the offences. This procedural lapse was a critical factor in the High Court's decision to quash the order.
Outcome and Future Steps
As a result of these findings, the Karnataka High Court has sent the matter back to the concerned court to consider the complaint afresh. This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to proper legal procedures and principles in defamation cases, ensuring that justice is served without procedural errors.
The case highlights the complexities involved in legal disputes within academic institutions and serves as a reminder of the need for careful judicial scrutiny in such matters.
