Karnataka High Court Directs Priyank Kharge and Haris Nalapad to Approach Sessions Court in RSS Defamation Case

Karnataka High Court Directs Kharge and Nalapad to Sessions Court in RSS Defamation Case

The Karnataka High Court has declined to entertain petitions filed by Home Minister Priyank M. Kharge and Congress leader Mohammed Haris Nalapad challenging criminal defamation proceedings under defamation BNS Section 356. Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, sitting as a Single Bench, directed both petitioners 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 two leaders had sought to challenge a June 27, 2026 order passed by the Bengaluru Special Court for cases against sitting and former MPs and MLAs. That court had taken cognizance of an offence under Section 356 BNS against Kharge and Nalapad. An RSS member filed the criminal defamation complaint, alleging that Kharge made defamatory statements through social media posts and public statements in October 2025.

Justice Hegde's order reflects the High Court's position that the petitioners have adequate recourse through the criminal justice system without requiring the High Court's intervention at this stage. The refusal to entertain the petition does not address the merits of the defamation allegations themselves, but rather concerns the proper forum and procedure for challenging the cognizance order.

Section 356 BNS and the Law of Defamation

Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) addresses defamation and replaces the corresponding provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal defamation law in India has undergone significant evolution, particularly with the introduction of the BNS, which codifies offences relating to public reputation and false statements. The statute defines defamation as the act of publishing or uttering any matter which is calculated to injure the reputation of a person by lowering them in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.

The application of defamation BNS Section 356 in cases involving public figures and political speech remains contested. Courts have repeatedly held that while freedom of speech is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, it is not absolute. Statements that cross the threshold from fair criticism into false allegations of fact can constitute defamation. The medium through which such statements are made—whether traditional media, social media, or public platforms—does not change the fundamental legal principles, though cyber defamation law in India has developed specific considerations for digital platforms.

Social Media Statements and Political Speech

The allegations against Kharge and Nalapad centre on statements made through social media posts and public statements. This reflects a growing trend in defamation litigation where political figures challenge statements made on digital platforms. Social media defamation law in India remains an evolving area, as courts grapple with the speed and reach of online communication, the permanence of digital content, and the difficulty of controlling its spread.

The RSS member who filed the complaint alleged that the statements made by Kharge and Nalapad were defamatory in nature. The Bengaluru Special Court, after examining the complaint and supporting materials, found sufficient grounds to take cognizance under Section 356 BNS. This decision meant that the court believed there was a prima facie case to proceed with criminal prosecution.

Once a court takes cognizance, the accused person enters the formal criminal justice process, facing investigation and potential prosecution. The petitioners sought to challenge this order at the High Court stage, arguing that the allegations did not constitute defamation or that there were procedural defects in the process.

Revision Before the Sessions Court

Justice Hegde's direction that the petitioners approach the Sessions Court reflects established criminal procedure. Under the format of criminal revision petition in sessions court, parties dissatisfied with orders passed by lower courts can seek revision. A criminal revision petition is a remedy available to challenge orders that are alleged to be illegal, irregular, or unjust. The Sessions Court, being a superior court to the Special Court, has the authority to examine the legality of the cognizance order and determine whether it should be sustained or quashed.

This remedy is considered equally efficacious as a High Court petition because the Sessions Court possesses broad powers to examine the entire record and decide whether the proceedings should continue. The High Court's decision to direct the petitioners to this forum suggests that the matter can be adequately resolved without requiring the High Court's direct intervention.

Courts are reluctant to entertain petitions when other adequate remedies exist. By directing the petitioners to the Sessions Court, the High Court ensures that the burden on the High Court's docket is reduced while still affording the petitioners a fair opportunity to challenge the cognizance order.

Principles Established in Defamation Case Law India

Defamation case law India has established several important principles that guide courts in deciding such matters. The Supreme Court and High Courts have consistently held that defamation requires proof of publication of a false statement that damages reputation. The statement must be understood by reasonable readers to be asserting a fact, not merely expressing opinion. Even if a statement is harsh or critical, it may not constitute defamation if it remains within the bounds of fair comment or criticism.

In cases involving public figures and political speech, courts have applied a higher threshold, recognizing that public figures must tolerate greater scrutiny and criticism than private individuals. However, this does not mean that false statements of fact about public figures are protected. The courts have held that even public figures can sue for defamation if they can prove that false statements of fact were made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.

The distinction between fact and opinion is critical in defamation litigation. A statement that can reasonably be interpreted as opinion, even if harsh or unflattering, may not constitute defamation. Conversely, a statement that asserts a false fact can constitute defamation even if it is phrased as opinion.

Criminal Defamation Law in India

Criminal defamation law in India operates alongside the civil law of defamation. While civil defamation results in damages and injunctions, criminal defamation can result in imprisonment and fines. Section 356 BNS provides for punishment for defamation, making it a criminal offence to publish or utter matter calculated to injure the reputation of a person.

The criminal nature of the charge means that the standard of proof is higher—beyond reasonable doubt, rather than the balance of probabilities applicable in civil cases. This reflects the serious consequences of criminal conviction, including potential imprisonment.