Sonu Nigam gets relief from Karnataka HC in Bengaluru concert row; gets permission for appearing via video conference

Karnataka HC says no coercive action to be taken against Sonu Nigam in Kannada song row case till the next hearing. Read to know more.

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday directed that no coercive steps be taken against singer Sonu Nigam until the next date of hearing, in connection with a recent criminal case registered against him for allegedly making offensive remarks during a concert. (Also Read: Kannada director who replaced Sonu Nigam's songs says apology ‘not enough’: How can someone who thinks so lowly of us…)

Singer Sonu Nigam came under fire after his recent concert in Bengaluru sparked a language row.

High Court grants Sonu Nigam relief

The court also permitted the singer to appear via videoconferencing to record his statement if required by the investigating officer (IO). Alternatively, if the IO insists on a physical appearance, the court said the officer could visit Sonu, with the singer bearing the associated expenses. 

The case stems from a complaint lodged after an incident at a concert. Some Kannadiga fans had requested Sonu to sing in Kannada. The singer allegedly took offence to the tone of the request and reportedly remarked, “This is why Pahalgam happened,” drawing a controversial comparison to the April 22 terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir. 

What happened during the hearing

During the hearing, Sonu’s counsel, Dhananjay Vidyapati, argued that the complaint was filed solely for publicity and that the alleged offence of public mischief under Section 505 of the IPC was not made out. He also said it was a solitary incident, the concert proceeded smoothly, and the complaint was filed by a third party. The state counsel, however, maintained that Sonu’s remarks needed to be examined in the course of investigation to determine intent. 

“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. Arguing against special privileges, the State’s counsel added, “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.” 

When the court asked why Sonu’s statement could not be recorded virtually or even at his residence, the State objected, saying that would amount to giving the singer “too much convenience.” Responding to concerns raised by Sonu’s counsel about the media spectacle that would follow a physical appearance, the court observed: “If you want physical appearance, you go to his place and record his statement. He could bear the expenses.” 

The court recorded the State’s submission that no coercive steps would be taken if Sonu cooperated with the investigation. It stayed the filing of any final report in the case until the next date of hearing.