The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (October 1) declined to entertain petitions filed by Karnataka Home Minister Priyank M. Kharge and Congress leader Mohammed Haris Nalapad, challenging the criminal defamation proceedings initiated against them over alleged remarks against the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 399]

The Single Bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde directed Kharge and Nalapad to approach the jurisdictional Sessions Court by way of a criminal revision petition, holding that an equally efficacious alternate remedy was available to them.

The Court was hearing petitions challenging the June 27, 2026 order passed by the Bengaluru Special Court for cases against sitting and former MPs and MLAs, whereby cognizance was taken of an offence under Section 356 BNS against Kharge and Nalapad.

The petitioners had sought quashing of the cognizance order as well as all consequential proceedings pending before the Special Court.

The criminal defamation complaint was filed by an RSS member, 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.

Before the High Court, Senior Advocate Sandesh Chouta, appearing for Kharge, argued that the complaint could not have been instituted by the complainant as he was not the person aggrieved by the alleged defamatory statements.

Referring to Section 222 BNS, which deals with prosecution for defamation and corresponds to Section 199 of the erstwhile CrPC, Chouta submitted that the provision contemplated a complaint by the “person aggrieved”.

He further referred to Sections 215 and 219 of the BNSS, submitting that those provisions also contemplate an aggrieved person setting the criminal law in motion.

The Court however declined to examine these submissions on merits, observing that the order under challenge was an order taking cognizance and that the petitioners had an equally efficacious alternate remedy before the jurisdictional Sessions Court.

“...The order assailed before this Court is an order taking cognizance in proceedings under Section 356 BNSS.... The Court is of the view that there is an equally efficacious alternate remedy in the form of a criminal revision petition. Under the circumstances, in the instant case, the petitioners can challenge it before the jurisdictional Sessions Court...,” the Court observed.

The Court also dealt with a separate petition filed by complainant Tejas A, challenging the Special Court's decision to drop proceedings against former Karnataka Minister and Congress MLA Dinesh Gundu Rao.

The complainant sought a direction for restoration of proceedings against Gundu Rao, whose name was excluded from the criminal proceedings by the Magistrate.

The High Court held that the jurisdictional Sessions Court has the power, in revision, to examine the order dismissing the complaint against Gundu Rao.

The Court observed that if the Sessions Court finds the order to be erroneous and concludes that further proceedings against Gundu Rao are warranted, it can direct the jurisdictional Magistrate to initiate proceedings against him.

“...In case the jurisdictional Sessions Court finds the order is erroneous and further proceedings against A2 are warranted, it is open to the Sessions Court to direct the jurisdictional Magistrate to initiate proceedings against A2...,” the Court held.