Karnataka HC Grants Sonu Nigam Interim Relief, Allows Virtual Appearance In Kannada Song Row Case

The World Voice    21-May-2025
Total Views |

Karnataka HC Grants Sonu Nigam
 
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday granted interim relief to playback singer Sonu Nigam in connection with a recent criminal case filed against him over alleged offensive remarks made during a concert. The court directed that no coercive action be taken against Nigam until the next date of hearing and permitted him to appear via video conferencing if required for recording his statement.
 
The case was lodged based on a complaint filed after a concert when certain audience members, who were Kannadiga fans, had asked Nigam to perform a song in Kannada. The complaint was that the singer seemed irritated by the way the request was made and apparently answered with the statement, "This is why Pahalgam happened," referencing the April 22 terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir.
 
The statement was perceived as insensitive and controversial and was criticised for its communal undertone. On Wednesday, Nigam's lawyer, DhananjayVidyapati, argued that the complaint had been driven by publicity and was legally unfounded under Section 505 of the Indian Penal Code pertaining to public mischief. He contended that the incident was isolated, the concert had continued without disruption, and that the complaint was filed by a third party who was not directly affected.
 
In response, the State's counsel argued that Nigam had not cooperated with the investigation and that his presence was necessary to determine whether his remarks were intentional. "Whether the comments were intentional or not cannot be adjudicated under Section 482 (CrPC). He has not cooperated with the investigation. He could have at least said he was busy," the State submitted. The State opposed granting him special privileges, asserting that public figures should be held to higher standards of accountability. "A person who does not respect due process of law cannot be given benefit under 482… He is not a normal man, but that is precisely why he should not have made such a statement," the State's counsel added.