BJP Candidate’s Mutt Election Case Quashed as Karnataka HC Says Religious-Use Act Does Not Cover Speakers, Only Those in Control of Institutions

The petitioner, a BJP candidate in the 2023 Assembly election, attended and participated in a commemoration ceremony at a mutt while the Model Code of Conduct was in force.

The complaint alleged that attendees raised slogans in his favour and that he promised to construct a building near a temple after the election.

Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed in C.C. No. 784/2023 for offences including Sections 171E and 188 of the IPC and Sections 3, 6 and 7 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988.

The petitioner sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS, contending, among other things, that he was neither the manager nor an official of the mutt

Section 3 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act prohibits a religious institution or its manager from using, or permitting the use of, its premises for specified purposes, including political activity; the Court construed the provision as directed to the institution, its manager or the person in control, not the person using the premises or making a speech there

Section 171E IPC punishes bribery, which is defined in Section 171B IPC and requires a gratification given or offered to induce or reward the exercise of an electoral right

The Court also referred to a coordinate Bench decision in Crl.P. No. 1560/2024, which held that the ingredients of bribery require a person who gives or offers gratification and another person who is bribed or offered the gratification

The Court held that the allegations did not place the petitioner within the class of persons to whom Section 3 applies: responsibility for permitting the prohibited use lay with the mutt’s manager or the person in control, and any separate unlawful speech could be dealt with under other applicable provisions

After excluding the Religious Institutions Act offences as against the petitioner, the Court noted that Section 171E IPC remained and was non-cognizable; it also recorded the petitioner’s reliance on the coordinate Bench’s decision concerning the ingredients of bribery

In light of that decision and its own reasoning, the Court concluded that the proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed, without separately setting out a detailed application of Section 171E to each allegation in the complaint

Pending applications, if any, were disposed of