No coercive steps if Sonu Nigam cooperates with probe in Pahalgam remark row: Karnataka High Court

Nigam moved the Karnataka High Court Tuesday with a petition to quash the criminal proceedings filed against him on May 2 under under sections 351(2) (criminal intimidation), 352(1) (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace), and 353 (public mischief) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). A controversy had erupted over the singer’s remarks at a concert in Bengaluru on April 25 at the East Point College of Engineering, where some people in the audience insisted that he sing in Kannada, allegedly prompting him to draw a reference to the Pahalgam terrorist attack in April.

In the proceedings on Thursday before the Court, Sonu Nigam’s counsel argued that the sole comment made by the singer at the event had not led to any mischief, while the programme had gone on peacefully for hours. He added that based on this statement, the complaint was made by a person who was not present at the venue, while Nigam’s statement did not attract the sections of law cited in the First Information Report (FIR).

The State counsel said Sonu Nigam made the statement during the programme that was broadcast live. With reference to Nigam’s statement, he said, “At the Madhya Pradesh High Court, similar allegations were made against a minister and the court took a suo motu cognisance and directed the FIR to be registered, and the Supreme Court had refused to interfere.”

The State counsel also said they would not take coercive steps, provided that Nigam cooperated with the investigation.

Nigam’s counsel requested that the court allow the singer to submit his statements via post or some other method, as physical appearance would create a “tamasha” and publicity, considering his prominence. In response to a query by the court, the State counsel noted that they would provide whatever protection is required for Nigam, as going to his residence to take a statement would be placing a premium on the matter.

In addition to their order, the bench stated, “The petitioner (Nigam) is permitted to appear through video conference before the investigator if so required for the purpose of recording his statement. If the investigating officer wants to record the statement physically, the petitioner shall bear the expenses of the investigating officer.”