Refusing a police notice offers no legal shield for lawmakers

 BVSee


The incident in Chikkamagaluru, where BJP legislator C T Ravi turned back police officers attempting to serve a notice regarding an alleged hate speech case, underscores a sharp friction between lawmakers and the law enforcement machinery. Having previously faced arrest in December 2024 over derogatory comments against a woman minister — a matter that saw him transferred across multiple police jurisdictions before securing judicial relief—this latest episode reinforces a persistent pattern of defiance toward statutory police processes.

Under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, a notice of appearance is designed to give an accused person an opportunity to cooperate with an investigation without undergoing immediate arrest for offences carrying sentences under seven years. When an individual actively refuses to receive or acknowledge such a notice, the legal process does not grind to a halt. Section 35(6) of the BNSS explicitly empowers the investigating officer to execute an arrest without a warrant due to non-cooperation. it almost amounts obstructing a police officer performing official duties and therefore attracts independent criminal liability under Section 221 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for obstructing a public servant, and Section 222 for intentionally preventing the service of process. To complete service legally, police simply resort to substituted service by affixing the notice to the premises—a step already executed by inspectors at the legislator's residence.

Constitutional privileges under Articles 105 and 194 grant immunity solely for speeches or votes within legislative chambers, offering zero protection against standard penal law for public conduct on the streets. While legislative colleagues such as Karkala MLA  Sunil Kumar and party leaders like Chalavadi Narayanaswamy rally to defend their peer by alleging political vendetta, political opposition and legal non-compliance remain fundamentally separate issues. Lawmakers have full recourse to challenge an FIR or seek anticipatory bail through competent courts, but physically refusing a notice from a lawful entity provides no legal immunity whatsoever. Under Article 14 of the Constitution, legislators are bound by the exact same procedural obligations as ordinary citizens, and defying statutory notices serves only to weaken their legal standing before the judiciary while eroding public faith in equal enforcement.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Karnataka Bank’s Course Correction: From Bureaucratic Blunder To Restoring Trust With Homegrown Leadership

Image
Karnataka Bank, one of India’s oldest and most respected private sector banks, has always been more than just a financial institution—it has been a people’s bank in the truest sense. Founded over a century ago in the heart of Karnataka’s coastal belt, the bank earned its reputation not through flashy campaigns or overnight growth, but through quiet, consistent service to small account holders, agriculturists, local traders, and slowly, to corporates. It grew because it was trusted. And that trust was cultivated by the fact that the people managing the bank were those who grew within it—rooted in its culture, ethos, and mission. For decades, even after the appointment of senior executives formally became the RBI’s prerogative, there was unwritten mutual respect between the Reserve Bank and Karnataka Bank’s Board and shareholders. The RBI honoured the sentiment that only insiders—those who understood the pulse of the institution and its customers—should lead the bank. This symbiosis work...
Read more

When Prestige Is Gifted, Not Earned: The Padma Vibhushan Controversy Of Veerendra Heggade

Image
When a nation’s second-highest civilian honour— the Padma Vibhushan —is handed out without traceable deliberations or public accountability, the integrity of the entire award system comes under question. That is exactly what has happened in the case of     D. Veerendra Heggade , the Dharmasthala hereditary administrator whose 2015 Padma Vibhushan award now appears to be the product of    unrecorded decision-making . This is not mere speculation. The evidence stems from a detailed RTI application filed by  Ranjan Rao Yerdoor , a citizen activist from Guruvayur of Dakshina Kannada, Karnataka, who sought documents from the Union Home Ministry regarding the nomination, recommendation, and selection process that led to Heggade being chosen for Padma Vibhushan award. The response he received was staggering: the government  admitted that no minutes of the Padma Awards Committee meeting were maintained , and  no records of the nomination were available ...
Read more

ಧರ್ಮಸ್ಥಳದ ಪ್ರಕರಣಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಸತ್ಯ ಸಾಯುವುದಿಲ್ಲ

Image
  ಅಪರಾಧಗಳನ್ನು ಮುಚ್ಚಿಹಾಕಬಹುದು, ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಗಳನ್ನು ತೆಪ್ಪಗಾಗಿಸಬಹುದು, ರಾಜಕೀಯ ಪಕ್ಷಗಳು ಪಿತೂರಿ ಮಾಡಬಹುದು ಆದರೆ ಇತಿಹಾಸ ತನ್ನದೇ ಆದ ರೀತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನೆನಪಿಟ್ಟುಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತದೆ. ಸೌಜನ್ಯ ಪ್ರಕರಣ ಅಷ್ಟು ಸುಲಭವಾಗಿ ಮರೆಯಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ...................... ಕೇಳ್ರಪ್ಪೋ ಕೇಳಿ * ಬಿವಿಸೀ ಹಲವು ದಶಕಗಳ ಕಾಲ ಧರ್ಮಸ್ಥಳದಲ್ಲಿ ನಡೆದಂತಹ ಅತ್ಯಾಚಾರ ಮತ್ತು ಕೊಲೆಗಳ ಪ್ರಕರಣಗಳನ್ನು ಮುಚ್ಚಿಹಾಕಲಾಗಿದ್ದು, ಘಟನೆಯನ್ನು ತಿರುಚುವ ಮೂಲಕ, ದಾರಿತಪ್ಪಿಸಿ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥಿತವಾಗಿ ಮರೆಮಾಚಲಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ. ಎಲ್ಲ ರಾಜಕೀಯ ಪಕ್ಷಗಳೂ ಸಹ, ಕಾಂಗ್ರೆಸ್, ಜೆಡಿಎಸ್ ಮತ್ತು ಬಿಜೆಪಿ, ತಮ್ಮದೇ ಆದ ರೀತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸತ್ಯವನ್ನು ಮುಚ್ಚಿಹಾಕಲು ಕೊಡುಗೆ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿವೆ. ಈ ಪಕ್ಷಗಳ ವ್ಯಾಖ್ಯಾನಗಳು ವಿಭಿನ್ನವಾಗಿದ್ದರೂ, ಅವುಗಳ ಗುರಿ ಒಂದೇ ಆಗಿದ್ದು, ಧರ್ಮಸ್ಥಳದ ಗುಂಪಿನ ಹಿತಾಸಕ್ತಿಗಳನ್ನು ರಕ್ಷಿಸುವುದೇ ಆಗಿದೆ. ಆದಾಗ್ಯೂ, ಎಷ್ಟೇ ವಿಳಂಬವಾದರೂ, ಸತ್ಯ ಸಾಯುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಸರ್ಕಾರವು ರಚಿಸಿರುವ ವಿಶೇಷ ತನಿಖಾ ದಳ (ಎಸ್‍ಐಟಿ) ಈ ಪ್ರಕರಣಗಳು ವಿರಮಿಸುವ ತಾಣವಾಗುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದು ಭಾವಿಸಲಾಗಿತ್ತು. ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕರ ಆಕ್ರೋಶವನ್ನು ತಣಿಸಲು ಸರ್ಕಾರವು ಅನುಸರಿಸಿದ ತಾಂತ್ರಿಕ ಕಸರತ್ತು ಎಂದೂ, ಧರ್ಮಸ್ಥಳ ರಿಪಬ್ಲಿಕ್ ಸಂಸ್ಥಾನಕ್ಕೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಹಾನಿಕಾರಕ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಗಳು ಲಭ್ಯವಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲವೆಂದೂ ಭಾವಿಸಲಾಗಿತ್ತು. ಆದರೆ ಇತ್ತೀಚಿನ ಹೊಸ ಬೆಳವಣಿಗೆಗಳು ದೀರ್ಘಕಾಲ ಮುಚ್ಚಿಹೋಗಿದ್ದ ದುರಂತಗ...
Read more