Published Jul 02, 2026 | 5:58 PM ⚊ Updated Jul 02, 2026 | 5:58 PM
Karnataka Home Minister Priyank Kharge.
Synopsis: A Bengaluru court has rejected Karnataka Home Minister Priyank Kharge’s argument that a criminal defamation complaint over his alleged remarks against the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is not maintainable because the organisation is unregistered and the complainant failed to prove his membership. The court took cognisance of the case, holding that the complaint disclosed a prima facie case requiring trial. It also held that the RSS is a definite and identifiable body under the law.
A special court in Bengaluru hearing a criminal defamation case against Karnataka Home Minister Priyank Kharge and Youth Congress leader Mohammed Haris Nalapad over allegedly defamatory remarks against the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has rejected the defence’s argument that the complaint is not maintainable on the ground that the RSS is not a registered organisation and that the complainant has produced no evidence, apart from his own assertion, to show that he is a member of the far-right Hindu nationalist organisation.
The complaint was filed by Bengaluru resident Tejas A, who described himself as an RSS swayamsevak and supporter, alleging that statements made by Kharge, Nalapad and Karnataka Health Minister Dinesh Gundu Rao in October 2025 had defamed the RSS and its members.
In an order dated 27 June, XLII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Sandeep Patil took cognisance of the offence of criminal defamation under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against Kharge and Nalapad, holding that the complaint, sworn statements and supporting material disclosed a prima facie case against them and that the defences they raised involved disputed questions of fact and law requiring a full-fledged trial.
The court rejected the complaint against Gundu Rao. The matter has been posted for 21 July.
The court held that the defence’s contention that the RSS is an unregistered organisation and that, therefore, its members cannot maintain a complaint was “wholly untenable and devoid of merit.”
“The statute does not prescribe any requirement of formal membership, registration, incorporation, or documentary proof of affiliation as a condition precedent for recognizing a body of persons under the law. To import such requirements into the provision would amount to reading words into the statute which the legislature has consciously omitted,” the court said while interpreting Section 2(26) of the BNS, which defines “person” to include “any company or association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not.”
Also Read: Priyank Kharge pushes RSS to a “Kagaz Nahi Dikhayenge” moment and he won’t stop there
The judge cited decisions of the Supreme Court, the Allahabad High Court and the Kerala High Court to hold that the RSS had previously been recognised as a definite and identifiable body for the purposes of criminal defamation law.
The court observed that the accused themselves had allegedly directed their statements against the RSS and its members and could not simultaneously contend that no identifiable body existed.
“The accused cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate simultaneously. On one hand, they seek to justify their statements by referring to the RSS and its members, while on the other hand they deny the existence of such members solely to defeat the maintainability of the complaint,” the order said.
The court also held that, at the preliminary stage, the complainant’s assertion that he is an RSS swayamsevak was sufficient, and that whether he ultimately proves such membership or actual reputational harm is a matter for trial.
“The concept of ‘aggrieved person’ in defamation jurisprudence does not require that the complainant must be individually named in the defamatory statement. It is sufficient if the imputation is made against a determinate class or identifiable group and the complainant shows prima facie that he is part of such group. The question whether the complainant ultimately proves such membership or actual harm is a matter for trial,” the court observed.
The court held that disputed questions, including whether the complainant is in fact a swayamsevak, whether he possesses documentary proof of membership, whether the alleged statements caused him reputational harm, and whether the accused acted with the requisite intention, require evidence and cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of taking cognisance.
The judge further observed that intention to defame is ordinarily inferred from the words used, the circumstances in which they were uttered, and their natural consequences.
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
