Supreme Court Seeks H.D. Revanna’s Reply on Karnataka Government’s Challenge to High Court Order Dropping Outraging Modesty Charge
The Supreme Court has agreed to examine the Karnataka government’s challenge to a Karnataka High Court order that quashed the charge of outraging a woman’s modesty under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code against JD(S) MLA H.D. Revanna. A Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran issued notice to Revanna and directed him to file his response to the State’s appeal, marking a significant development in the sexual harassment case lodged by his former domestic help.
The appeal arises from the High Court’s November 2025 judgment, which discharged Revanna of the offence under Section 354 IPC while retaining the charge of sexual harassment under Section 354A IPC. The High Court had held that the allegations disclosed an offence of sexual harassment rather than the graver offence of assault or criminal force with intent to outrage a woman’s modesty. It also directed the trial court to examine whether the delay in taking cognisance of the complaint could be condoned under the applicable provisions of criminal procedure.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court questioned the Karnataka government over the delay in approaching the apex court. The Bench asked why the State had not challenged the High Court’s decision immediately after the Section 354 charge was set aside, observing that governments must maintain procedural discipline while pursuing appeals. Despite these observations, the Court decided to entertain the State’s petition and sought Revanna’s counter affidavit before proceeding further.
The Karnataka government has argued that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reassessing the allegations at the pre-trial stage and prematurely deleting the Section 354 charge. According to the State, the nature and gravity of the allegations should be determined during trial after appreciation of evidence, rather than through an exercise under the High Court’s inherent powers.
The allegations against H.D. Revanna surfaced after multiple sexual offence cases were registered against his son, former MP Prajwal Revanna. One of the complainants, who had worked as a domestic help for the family, accused H.D. Revanna of sexual harassment, leading to the registration of offences under Sections 354, 354A, 506 and 509 of the IPC. During the pendency of Revanna’s quashing petition, the police filed a chargesheet and the trial court took cognisance of the offences before the High Court partially modified the charges.
The Supreme Court’s decision to issue notice does not amount to a ruling on the merits of the allegations. However, it signals that the apex court is willing to scrutinise whether the High Court was justified in dropping the Section 354 charge at the threshold. The outcome of the appeal could have broader implications for the scope of judicial intervention in criminal proceedings at the pre-trial stage, particularly in cases involving allegations of sexual offences.
