The Supreme Court has issued a notice regarding the Karnataka government’s appeal to overturn the discharge of JD(S) leader HD Revanna in a sexual harassment case. A lower court had previously cleared him, citing a four-year delay in the initial complaint. The apex court is now reviewing the judicial process and the legal basis for his discharge.
The Supreme Court of India has formally initiated a review of a lower court’s decision to discharge Janata Dal (Secular) leader HD Revanna from a sexual harassment case. A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran issued a notice on the Karnataka government’s appeal, which seeks to challenge the legality of the discharge granted by a Bengaluru trial court in December 2025.
The trial court’s decision to discharge Revanna was primarily based on the finding that there was a four-year delay in filing the complaint. This follows a November 2025 ruling by the Karnataka High Court, which had provided partial relief by distinguishing between different criminal charges. The High Court had remanded the matter, leading to the trial court’s subsequent decision to drop the charges.
During the recent proceedings, the Supreme Court bench expressed concern over the judicial handling of the case. The court specifically questioned the High Court’s decision to alter the charges and raised doubts regarding whether a discharge from Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to outraging the modesty of a woman, was legally appropriate given the nature of the allegations.
The case originated from an FIR registered in April 2025, which included allegations of sexual harassment and stalking involving HD Revanna and his son, Prajwal Revanna. These allegations surfaced after videos depicting alleged assaults became public. While HD Revanna has been granted bail in two separate criminal cases—one involving sexual assault allegations and another related to kidnapping—the state government continues its legal effort to reinstate the harassment charges.
For those monitoring the legal landscape, the key focus remains on the Supreme Court’s eventual interpretation of the limitation period for filing such complaints and the procedural consistency across lower courts. The outcome of this appeal may have broader implications for how trial courts handle cases where there is a significant time gap between an alleged incident and the formal filing of a police complaint.