On 18 September 2024, the Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against Priyank Kanoongo, chairperson of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) for offences including trespass and acts intended to outrage religious feelings. The matter pertained to his post over Darul Uloom Sayideeya Yatheemkhana in Bengaluru, an unregistered orphanage housing 200 children and functioning in violation of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Kanoongo had paid a surprise visit to the facility on 19th November of last year. He had also sent a communication note to the Chief Secretary to ensure registration of a First Information Report (FIR) and sought an action taken report. Ashraf Khan, who ran the aforementioned orphanage, complained to the Devarajeevanahalli police in response to his statement on X (formerly Twitter). A case was registered under Indian Penal Code sections 447, 448 (for trespass) and 295A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs).
The complaint which was filed on 21 November 2023 claimed that Kanoongo had said, “Taliban-like terrorist activities are taking place in madarasa.” Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while allowing the petition filed by Kanoongo, questioning the complaint registered by Ashraf Khan with the authorities. “What the complainant would seek to project is that the petitioner on his Twitter had uploaded a message commenting on the yateemkhana as ‘Taliban like terrorist activities taking place in madrasa.’ These sentences are not found in the tweet,” the high court emphasised.
It pointed out, “What the petitioner has tweeted is that they are the children who are living a medieval Taliban life. This can at best be a metaphor, used by the petitioner, to describe the condition as to how they were living. This has never been tweeted that Taliban-like terrorist activities taking place in madrasa. It is not a madrasa, it is an orphanage. The complainant has deliberately added these words to create animosity, in place of harmony. The allegation is that the statement of the petitioner has disturbed the peace and tranquillity, it is the other way around. The addition in the complaint is a clear mischief, which is likely to disturb the peace and tranquillity and not by the statements made by the petitioner.”
Such complaints if permitted to be continued, no public servant/s can be safe in the performance of their official duty: High Court
The complainant’s attorney acknowledged that there was no mention of “Taliban-like terrorist activities taking place in madrasa” in response to a pointed question from the court which further pronounced, “The act of the complainant is unpardonable but this court is holding its hands in not directing any coercive action against the complainant for the aforesaid act while observing that the officers should also encourage restraint as they are performing duties under the statute.”
It declared, “Therefore, the offence under Section 295A of the IPC cannot be laid as it is the product of falsehood and mischief on the part of the complainant.” The court explored the meaning of the statute and delved into previous judgements. It then added, “In the light of the fact that none of the ingredients of Section 295A of the IPC is made out, even to its remotest sense, the offence under Section 295A of the IPC is loosely laid against the petitioner.”
The court also brought up other sections invoked against Kanoongo and reprimanded, “The petitioner was performing his duties under the statute and in the discharge of his official duty, visits the yateemkhana/orphanage, finds illegalities and reports illegalities. The action of the public servants performing their duties under the statute and inspecting any premises can by no stretch of the imagination be a criminal trespass or house trespass by those public servants performing their public duties unless there are glaring facts otherwise present. In the case at hand does not project anything glaring except the mischief of the complainant.”
It also mentioned, “The subject complaint is deliberately registered by the complainant as a counterblast to the complaint made by the petitioner to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Karnataka and the Deputy Commissioner, exposing the manner of children living in the yatheemkhana by the petitioner. Such complaints if permitted to be continued, no public servant/s can be safe in the performance of their official duty. Therefore, finding no ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner, permitting further proceedings to continue on the face of it, would become an abuse of the process of the law and putting a premium on the mischief played by the complainant.”
The high court refers to the pitiful condition of the orphanage
Kanoongo sent a report to the Deputy Commissioner and other officers requesting corrective action, as well as an account to the Chief Secretary of the Karnataka government following the inspection. He observed several irregularities in the management of the orphanage while communicating with the officers. The court stated that the petitioner intended to inspect juvenile or custodial homes, as well as any other place of residence or institution meant for children, as part of the official tour program, in the exercise of the powers granted under Section 13 of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights (CPCR) Act, 2005.
“Section 13 of the CPCR (Commissions for Protection of Child Rights) Act thus empowered the petitioner to enter into any home that houses children in whatever name they were existing. The petitioner comes to Bangalore, seeks to conduct an inspection of the orphanage, yateemkhana run by the complainant, finds several illegalities and communicates those illegalities to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Karnataka,” the court asserted after looking into its definition.
It added, “The petitioner also communicates the same to the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District under whose precincts the orphanage was functioning and seeks action to be taken against the said orphanage.” The court stated that Kanoongo, who was on an official visit, had inspected three orphanages in the city and found that the present orphanage was running illegally without registration and lacked infrastructure for 200 children.
It informed, “The broad illegalities that the petitioner found in the yateemkhana were that the orphanage was not fulfilling the infrastructural requirement, there were 5 rooms approximately 100 sq. ft. each and about 150 children were staying in those rooms, 16 children slept on 4 bunk beds and 150 children were made to sleep in two big halls used for making prayers. None of the children were sent to school, no recreational facilities were available in the orphanage and those conditions violated the provisions of the Act.” Kanoongo asked the state to make sure that the complaint is officially recorded as having committed offences that fall under Sections 34, 42, and 75 of the Act.
The high court concluded, “If the original complaint in Kannada, the tweet in Hindi and the English translation and the judgment rendered by the apex court is considered, it would lead to an unmistakable inference that this would become a fit case where proceedings against the petitioner will have to be quashed by the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) failing which, it will not only fall foul of the judgment of the apex court but result in patent injustice.”
What did Priyank Kanoongo post?
In a tweet on 20th November, Priyank Kanoongo informed, “A surprise inspection was conducted of an unregistered orphanage running illegally by the name of Darul Uloom Sayyediya Yatim Khana in Bengaluru, Karnataka, in which many irregularities were found. Around 200 orphan children are kept here. 8 children are kept in a 100 square feet room, 40 children live in 5 such rooms and 16 children live in the corridor. The remaining 150 children sleep at night in two separate halls to offer prayers in the mosque. All 200 children study Islamic religious education in the madrasa in these prayer halls throughout the day. No children are sent to school.”
बंगलुरु,कर्नाटक में दारूल उलूम सैय्यादिया यतीम खाना नाम से अवैध ढंग से चलते हुए एक ग़ैरपंजीकृत अनाथ आश्रम का औचक निरीक्षण किया जिसमें कई अनियमिततायें पायी गयीं।
— प्रियंक कानूनगो Priyank Kanoongo (@KanoongoPriyank) November 20, 2023
यहाँ क़रीब 200 यतीम (अनाथ) बच्चों को रखा गया है।
100 वर्गफ़िट के कमरे में 8 बच्चों का रखा जाता है,ऐसे 5 कमरों में 40… pic.twitter.com/dnp1g8Wj7a
The tweet further added, “There is no play material, the kids don’t even watch TV, and the little kids are very innocent and are so scared that on seeing the maulana coming all of them become still and close their eyes, they wake up at 3:30 in the morning and start studying in the madrasa and sleep in the afternoon, then there is study from evening till night, there are short breaks for namaz during the day. There is no other place for eating, rest, entertainment etc. One has to stay in the mosque only. It has come to light that this orphanage, which has Waqf property worth crores, has a separate building in which a school is running but these children are not allowed to go there. These children are living a medieval Talibani life, this life is not written for them in the Constitution. This is the negligence of the Karnataka government, a violation of the Constitution. NCPCR is taking cognizance, notice is being issued to the Chief Secretary of the state.”
