A Bengaluru special court has put on hold proceedings in a criminal defamation case involving Karnataka Home Minister Priyank Kharge and Congress leader Mohammed Nalapad over remarks concerning the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).
Special Judge KB Shivaprasad, while hearing revision petitions filed by the two accused, questioned the lower court’s decision to leave the issue of the complainant’s standing to be determined only during the trial.
The court observed that establishing whether a person has the legal authority to initiate a criminal defamation complaint is a threshold requirement and therefore cannot necessarily be deferred until evidence is recorded.
The dispute stems from an order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Bengaluru on June 27, 2026. The Magistrate had taken cognizance of an alleged offence under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and issued summons to Kharge and Nalapad.
The special court has now issued notice to complainant A Tejas and called for the lower court records.
During the hearing, arguments centred on whether Tejas was legally entitled to maintain the complaint. Senior Advocate Sandesh Chouta, representing Kharge, argued that Tejas had offered varying accounts about his association with the RSS but had not produced material demonstrating that he was a member of the organisation.
According to the argument, a person seeking to pursue a private defamation complaint must show that they are an identifiable individual who has suffered a specific legal injury. Without evidence establishing Tejas’s connection with the RSS, it was argued, the complaint could not be sustained.
Senior Advocate Vikram Huilgol, appearing for Nalapad, pointed to Section 222(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which requires a complaint for an offence under Section 356 of the BNS to come from an aggrieved person.
Huilgol also challenged the reasoning behind the Magistrate’s decision to take cognizance, arguing that sufficient reasons had not been recorded.
The special court found that the question of locus standi deserved scrutiny at this stage. It noted that summons had already been issued and evidence had begun to be recorded before the Magistrate.
Allowing the proceedings to continue, the court said, could undermine the purpose of the revision petitions if the underlying order were subsequently found to require interference.
The trial proceedings have consequently been stayed for the time being.
The matter is scheduled to come up next on October 30.