The Karnataka High Court has refused to interfere with criminal defamation proceedings against expelled BJP MLA Basanagouda Ramangouda Patil Yatnal over controversial remarks targeting Congress MLA Shivananda S Patil.
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde dismissed Yatnal’s petition seeking to quash the case, holding that a magistrate does not have to examine an independent witness in every defamation complaint to establish that the complainant’s reputation has suffered.
The Court rejected Yatnal’s contention that the magistrate had improperly taken cognisance of the complaint without recording the statement of someone who could confirm that the remarks had damaged Patil’s reputation in their eyes.
Explaining the legal position, the Court said the requirement under the defamation provision must be examined in the context of the allegations and circumstances of each case.
“The expression ‘in the estimation of others’ in Explanation-4 to Section 499 of IPC or 356(1) of BNS cannot be construed as having mandated, that in every case at the stage of taking cognizance and issuing the process, that a witness other than the complainant must be examined,” the Court observed.
Political confrontation that led to the defamation complaint
The dispute originated from a media interview given by Yatnal on April 30, 2025, which was broadcast on the YouTube channel of Gadinada Kranti.
The remarks came amid a political confrontation involving Yatnal, Shivananda Patil and another Congress MLA, Vijayanand Kashappanavar. The controversy followed criticism directed at Yatnal over his comments concerning Prophet Mohammed.
Yatnal had reportedly challenged the two Congress legislators to resign from the Karnataka Assembly and contest by-elections against him.
During his response, Yatnal allegedly questioned Shivananda Patil’s parentage and claimed that his family had adopted the Patel surname for political purposes. He also accused the Congress MLA of betraying the Panchamasali community and accepting money during a padayatra.
The statements allegedly included further personal remarks questioning Patil’s character and political conduct.
Patil subsequently filed a criminal defamation complaint against Yatnal on July 18, 2025.
On January 24, 2026, the magistrate took cognisance of the complaint and issued summons to Yatnal. The magistrate relied on the complaint, a transcript contained in a pen drive, video recordings and sworn statements given by Patil and two other witnesses.
Yatnal’s challenge before the High Court
Approaching the High Court, Yatnal argued that Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with defamation, requires an imputation to lower a person’s reputation in the estimation of others.
According to him, the complainant was therefore required to produce a witness who could state that the alleged remarks had affected their opinion of Patil. He argued that the absence of such testimony made the magistrate’s decision to take cognisance legally unsustainable.
The High Court disagreed.
Justice Hegde explained that the expression concerning reputation in the estimation of others does not create an inflexible requirement that an independent witness must be examined before a defamation complaint can proceed.
Whether such testimony is necessary depends on the nature of the alleged statements and the facts surrounding the complaint.
In the present matter, the Court found that Yatnal’s alleged remarks contained serious allegations concerning Patil’s integrity and character and were, on their face, capable of damaging his reputation.
The magistrate had also considered the publication of the statements and the accounts provided by two witnesses before deciding to proceed with the complaint.
In these circumstances, the High Court found no legal error in the order taking cognisance.
Trial court need not assess the entire evidence at the initial stage
The Bench further clarified the limited scope of judicial scrutiny when a magistrate takes cognisance of a criminal complaint.
At this preliminary stage, the court is not expected to determine whether the available material is sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt or secure a conviction.
Those questions must be examined during the trial after the evidence is properly tested.
Finding no ground to interfere with the criminal proceedings, the High Court dismissed Yatnal’s petition to quash the defamation case.
Advocate Dalwai Venkatesh appeared for Yatnal, while Senior Advocate Ravi B Naik represented Shivananda Patil.