Mangaluru: Police have registered a suo motu case after video clips from a protest meeting organised by the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) were circulated on social media, allegedly containing misleading information and selective references to court judgments. The action follows a review of the clips by the police, who stated that the content could potentially mislead the public and create confusion.
Protest meeting and circulation of clips
According to a police press release, the SDPI organised a protest meeting on Friday, December 19. Video clips from the event were later widely shared across various social media platforms. After the clips went viral, police authorities examined the content and found that certain statements made during the protest referred selectively to judicial orders delivered by different courts.
The police noted that the selective presentation of such information, without full context, could result in distorted interpretations of court decisions.
Suo motu case registered
Based on the preliminary assessment, a suo motu complaint has been registered at the Bantwal Rural Police Station. The police stated that an investigation is currently under way to examine the content of the circulated clips and determine whether any legal provisions have been violated.
Officials said appropriate legal action would be initiated depending on the findings of the investigation. Further details, they added, would be shared after the completion of the preliminary inquiry.
Concerns over selective references to judgments
In the press release, the police highlighted that selectively quoting court judgments can mislead the public and create unnecessary confusion. Such selective narratives, they said, may lead people to draw conclusions that are not supported by the full text or intent of judicial orders.
The release pointed out that presenting only certain portions of court rulings could give rise to assumptions about organisations or individuals that may not be factually accurate when the judgments are read in their entirety.
Reference to High Court order
As an example, the police referred to a Karnataka High Court order from May 2023, which dismissed a petition challenging the seizure of the SDPI Mangaluru office under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The press release questioned whether the dismissal of that petition alone could be interpreted as proof of the organisation’s involvement in unlawful or banned activities.
The police stressed that judicial orders must be understood in their proper legal context and that drawing broad conclusions based on selective readings could misrepresent the intent of the court.
Mention of previous criminal case
The press release also referred to a previous communal murder case in the district in which an SDPI gram panchayat member is named as an accused and is currently lodged in jail. It noted that courts have rejected his bail applications.
However, the police cautioned that citing individual cases or court orders selectively to portray the entire organisation as being involved in conspiracy or murder, or to demand the resignation of all its members, would be misleading and factually incorrect.
Appeal to public and protesters
Police stated that the selective presentation of court verdicts amounts to the spread of false or misleading information. The press release appealed to those participating in protests to critically examine claims made during such events and to ensure that facts are presented in a complete and accurate manner.
The public was also urged to remain cautious against attempts to create confusion through selective narratives and partial disclosure of facts. Police emphasised the importance of responsible use of social media, especially when sharing content related to legal matters and court decisions.
Conclusion
The police reiterated that the investigation into the circulated video clips is ongoing and assured that action would be taken strictly in accordance with the law. Authorities appealed for cooperation from all sections of society to maintain clarity, public order, and trust in judicial and legal processes.