Karnataka High Court: Quashes BNS 353(2) Case Against G Nagesh

• The Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings against G Nagesh alias Rajesha Hir imane.
• Nagesh was accused under Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for sharing a Facebook post.
• The post featured a morphed image of Rahul Gandhi with a Pakistani Army officer and the tagline "one agenda."
• Justice M Nagaprasanna ruled that continuing the trial would constitute an abuse of the legal process.
• The court noted that Nagesh merely shared the image and was not its creator.

The court's decision underscores a critical distinction between creating and merely disseminating content, suggesting a higher bar for establishing criminal intent in cases of sharing.

The Karnataka High Court recently intervened to quash criminal proceedings initiated against an individual identified as G Nagesh, also known by the alias Rajesha Hir imane. The case stemmed from a Facebook post shared by Nagesh, which featured a doctored image depicting Congress leader Rahul Gandhi alongside an officer from the Pakistani Army. This composite image was accompanied by a tagline that read, “one agenda.”

The controversial post, which Nagesh reportedly shared on May 20, 2025, showed one half of Rahul Gandhi's face merged with the other half of a Pakistani Army officer, whose nameplate indicated "Asim." The Shivamogga Deputy Commissioner lodged a formal complaint, asserting that this particular post had the potential to incite animosity between various communities and regional groups. Consequently, Nagesh was booked under Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), facing allegations of promoting enmity, hatred, and ill-will.

During the proceedings, G Nagesh contended that he was not the original creator of the morphed image but had merely shared it on the social media platform. He further argued that the accusations leveled against him did not meet the necessary criteria to constitute an offense under Section 353(2) of the BNS. The State, however, opposed his plea, maintaining that the charges were valid.

Justice M Nagaprasanna, presiding over the case at the Karnataka High Court, ultimately issued an order on November 4, which brought an end to the criminal proceedings. The court's ruling emphasized that allowing the trial to continue, given the specific facts of the case and guided by principles established by the Apex Court, would amount to an abuse of the legal process and result in a miscarriage of justice. The Karnataka High Court quashes BNS 353(2) case against Nagesh, highlighting the lack of direct involvement in creating the contentious content.

This ruling by Justice M Nagaprasanna provides crucial clarity regarding the application of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 353(2) interpretation, particularly concerning criminal liability for individuals who merely share content online. The court's decision underscores a critical distinction between creating and merely disseminating content, suggesting a higher bar for establishing criminal intent in cases of sharing. This is particularly relevant for understanding sharing Facebook post criminal liability India.

The judgment implies that for charges under BNS 353(2) to stand, there must be clear evidence of intent to promote enmity, hatred, or ill-will, beyond the simple act of re-posting. The court's observation that continuing the trial would be an abuse of process indicates a judicial reluctance to pursue charges where the accused's role is limited to sharing, especially when the intent to cause harm is not clearly demonstrated. This decision could serve as an important precedent, influencing how similar cases involving morphed images or controversial shared content are handled in the future, particularly in cases like the Rahul Gandhi Pakistani officer image case.

This ruling clarifies the high threshold for criminal liability under Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for merely sharing content, particularly when the intent to promote enmity is not clearly established. Lawyers should advise clients that courts may scrutinize such charges to prevent abuse of process, emphasizing the distinction between creating and sharing content and the need for clear evidence of intent for such offenses.

Source: Original reporting via legal news source.