Renukaswamy murder case: Celebrities cannot use their popularity to influence the law, cautions Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, by cancelling Kannada actor Darshan Thoogudeepa’s bail in the Renukaswamy murder case, has sent a strong message that celebrity status cannot be used to sway the law.

“No individual – however wealthy, influential, or famous – can claim exemption from the rigours of law. A celebrity status does not elevate an accused above the law, nor entitle him to preferential treatment in matters like grant of bail. Popularity cannot be a shield for impunity,” the Supreme Court cautioned.

A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan observed that influence, resources and social status cannot form a basis for granting bail where there was a genuine risk of prejudice to the investigation or trial.

Justice Mahadevan, who authored the scathing judgment, wrote the Karnataka High Court failed to consider “vital aspects” raised by the State government concerning Darshan’s social and political clout.

The State, represented by senior advocate Siddharth Luthra laid bare details of Darshan actively mobilising widespread media support and shaping the public narrative in his favour, thereby creating an atmosphere capable of prejudicing the ongoing investigation and undermining the fairness of the trial.

“He was not a passive onlooker but an active conspirator who played a pivotal role in the planning and executing the crime,” Mr. Luthra had submitted.

The crime was not the result of a sudden provocation or emotional outburst. It was cold, calculated. The accused actor was involved in the systematic destruction of evidence, including deleting CCTV footage, bribing co-accused to falsely surrender, and using police and local influence to derail the investigation.

Though the High Court’s grant of bail was primarily based on medical grounds raised by Darshan, a bare perusal of the health records showed the plea was “misleading, vague, and grossly exaggerated”.

This fact was further confirmed when Darshan made “multiple public appearances, including participation in high-profile social events, was seen in fine health and mobility, and did not undergo any surgery or serious medical procedure post-release. This establishes that he abused the liberty of bail, which was obtained on a false and misleading premise”.

The Supreme Court crit—cised the bail order, saying the gravity of the offence and its impact on society should have weighed heavily with the court, which ought to have considered the plea for bail with greater care and circumspection.

“Celebrities serve as social role models — accountability is greater, not lesser. They, by virtue of their fame and public presence, wield substantial influence on public behaviour and social values. Granting leniency to such persons despite grave charges of conspiracy and murder, sends a wrong message to society and undermines public confidence in the justice system… In a democracy governed by the rule of law, no individual is exempt from legal accountability by virtue of status or social capital. Article 14 of the Constitution mandates that all persons — regardless of their popularity, power, or privilege — are equally subject to the law,” the Supreme Court emphasised.

In a separate but concurring note, Justice Pardiwala underscored that “no man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man’s permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favour”.

The court warned the State of Karnataka that the day it heard any of the accused in the murder case was provided five-star treatment in jail, the first step it would take would be to suspend the jail superintendent and other officials involved in the misconduct.