Kannada actor Upendra is facing a second legal case due to comments he allegedly made that were offensive towards the Dalit community. The complaint was submitted by Byrappa Harish Kumar, the State President of Karnataka Ranadhira Pad, at the Halasuru Gate police station on August 13, as reported by The Hindu.
According to the complaint, Upendra, who is also involved in politics, has been accused of violating the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Acts. These accusations are related to statements he supposedly made to incite hatred and create hostility among different groups based on their religion or race, The Hindu stated.
Kannada Actor Upendra Faces Second Case for Alleged Caste Remarks
The controversy arose during a live session on Facebook where Upendra was commemorating the anniversary of his political group, the “Uttama Prajakeeya Party,” on a Saturday. The comments he made during this event led to outrage and prompted him to issue an apology on Facebook. In his apology, Upendra acknowledged that he had used a hurtful statement unintentionally and had removed the live video from his social media profiles.
Regarding the legal situation, DCP Bengaluru South P Krishnakant informed PTI that an atrocity case has been officially registered at the Chennammanakere Achukattu Police Station. This case falls under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act and is based on the complaint that Upendra’s Facebook statement had deeply offended the public sentiment.
Upendra had made the controversial remarks during a Facebook Live to mark the anniversary of his political party.
This is the second time Upendra has faced such accusations. The initial FIR was lodged by Madhusudhan KN, an assistant director of the Social Welfare Department, with the CK Acchukattu police under the SC and ST (Atrocities Prevention) Act. The latest complaint further compounds the legal challenges for the actor-turned-politician.
As the situation unfolds, it remains to be seen how the legal proceedings will progress and how Upendra’s statements will be evaluated in the context of the law. These cases highlight the significance of responsible communication, particularly for public figures whose words can carry a substantial impact.