Bengaluru Court Stays RSS Defamation Case Against Minister Priyank Kharge, Congress Leader Nalapad
A Bengaluru Sesssions Court has stayed further proceedings in a criminal defamation case against Karnataka Home Minister Priyank M. Kharge and Congress leader Mohammed Haris Nalapad over alleged defamatory statements against Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).
Judge KB Shivaprasad has decided to examine the locus standi of the organisation's member, who filed the complaint.
The development comes in a criminal revision petition filed by Kharge, challenging the June 27 order passed by the Special MP/MLA Court taking cognizance of offences under Section 356 BNS against Kharge and Nalapad.
The Sessions Court today observed that the Magistrate had proceeded to take cognizance and issued summons without considering the contention that the complainant is not an 'aggrieved' person.
“….The authority to file the complaint is a primary requirement and under the said circumstance, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate requires examination in this revision in the light of contentions urged by the learned Senior Counsel… Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate requires to be stayed till next date of hearing”, the Court observed.
Noting that the Magistrate had already issued summons and proceeded to record evidence, the Court held that if the matter were allowed to proceed further, the purpose of the revision would be defeated.
To recap, the criminal defamation complaint was filed by an RSS member, Tejas A, alleging that Kharge had made defamatory statements against the RSS and its members through social media posts and other public statements in October 2025. The complaint also contained allegations concerning statements allegedly made by Nalapad through YouTube.
The Karnataka High Court had on October 1 declined to entertain the quash petitions filed by Kharge and Nalapad, and had suggested them to avail the statutory remedy of revision. Accordingly, the accused approached the Sessions Court seeking to set aside the cognizance order.
Senior Advocate Sri. Sandesh J. Chouta, appearing for the revision petitioner, contended today that the private complaint was not maintainable. It was argued that the complainant had given 'different versions' regarding his connection with the RSS. The complainant had failed to produce material substantiating his membership in the organization, Chouta told the court.
The Senior Counsel took the Court through the tweets and other posts of the petitioner and other accused, contending that the complainant had improperly joined multiple causes of action in a single complaint, which is impermissible under law. He further explained the mode of enrolment for RSS membership, referring to its organizational structure, to demonstrate that the complainant did not qualify as a member.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016), Chouta argued that an 'aggrieved person' refers to a 'definite identifiable person who sustained specific legal injury' and would not include 'any and every person'.
It was also iterated by the counsel that in the absence of any material showing the complainant is a member of the RSS and is an aggrieved person, the complaint itself is not maintainable.
Similarly, Senior Adv Vikram Huilgol for Nalapad submitted that the phraseology adopted in Section 222(1) of BNSS would indicate that the magistrate court shall not take cognizance of the offence of Section 356 of BNS, except on complaint by aggrieved person.
After hearing both parties, the Court passed the following order:
“….Further proceedings in CC No.39022/2026 on the file of learned XLII ACJM, Bengaluru is stayed till next date of hearing. Issue notice to Respondent. Call for records by 30.10.2026”.
The matter will be taken up again on October 30.