Tejasvi Surya's Claim Of Farmer Suicide Linked To Waqf Board Lands Him In Karnataka High Court, Probe Stayed In Fake News Case

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (14 November) granted an interim stay on the investigation against BJP MP Tejasvi Surya in connection with a case of spreading alleged fake news regarding the suicide of a farmer in Haveri district. The case pertains to a social media post made by Surya on X claiming that the farmer took his life after losing his land to the Waqf Board.

Justice M Nagaprasanna, while passing the interim order, stated that the allegations against Surya under Section 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), related to promoting enmity between groups, did not prima facie amount to an offense. The court stayed the First Information Report (FIR) and further proceedings until the next hearing scheduled for 4 December.

The case originated from a suo motu complaint filed by a police inspector in Haveri after Surya’s post on X alleged, "A farmer in Haveri commits suicide after finding his land taken over by Waqf! In their haste to appease minorities, CM Siddaramaiah and Minister B. Z. Zameer Ahmed Khan have unleashed catastrophic effects in Karnataka that are becoming impossible to contain with every passing day."

Surya later deleted the post after police clarified that the farmer had died by suicide two years earlier due to financial distress from loans and debts, unrelated to any land issue involving the Waqf Board.

Senior Counsel Aruna Shyam, appearing for Surya, argued that the post was made based on a news report and was subsequently removed when factual inaccuracies were highlighted. She further pointed out that the deceased farmer’s father, in a media interview, refuted claims linking the suicide to the Waqf issue, which vindicated Surya’s position.

The State government, opposing Surya’s plea, argued that the post could potentially promote enmity between communities and adversely affect societal harmony. The government asked the court to examine the post’s broader implications.

Justice Nagaprasanna questioned the necessity and appropriateness of registering an FIR against Surya, remarking, "Is what is happening also correct? Just yesterday, I said that every action has an equal and opposite reaction."

He emphasised that the context and intent behind Surya’s tweet, coupled with its deletion, did not meet the criteria for invoking Section 505(2) of the IPC. In light of these observations, the court stayed the investigation and proceedings until 4 December, allowing time for further deliberation on the matter.