The court rejects the contention that an RSS member cannot file a defamation suit because he is not a registered person

Responding to Home and IT&BT Minister Priyanka Kharge, a special court in Bengaluru rejected his contention that no member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) could file a defamation case as the RSS “is not a registered organization and maintains no registered membership”.

The court described Mr. Kharge’s contention as “totally unsustainable and devoid of merit”, citing various earlier judicial precedents in which the High Courts and the Supreme Court had clearly stated that “the RS is a specific, definite and identifiable body or class of persons; and consequently, if defamatory allegations are made against an RSS organisation, a defamation complaint against the RSS is made as a complaint against an RSS person”.

Sandeep Patil, judge of the Special Magistrate’s Court for criminal cases against former and present MPs and MLAs in Karnataka, made these findings in his June 27 order to take cognizance of the offense of defamation under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against Mr. Kharge and Muhammad, son of Haris of the Congress, file M. NADLAD. RSS member from Bengaluru Tejas A.

The complaint was filed with Mr Kharg, Mr Nalapad and the then minister Dinesh Gundi Rao as accused persons for allegedly making false, baseless and defamatory remarks against the RSS, its members and their activities through various media platforms in October 2025.

However, after hearing arguments on behalf of all the three accused, the court stayed the proceedings against Mr. Rao, taking cognizance of the offense only against the other two, finding that the materials produced in the complaint were prima facie sufficient to create an authority against them under Section 356 of the BNS.

Meanwhile, the court said that the accused cannot be allowed to “approve and condemn at the same time”, pointing out that on the one hand they justify their statements by referring to the RSS and its members using the labels “members of the RSS” and “swayamsevaks”, thereby conceding the existence of an identifiable group, while on the other hand they deny the possibility of registration simply because they want to frustrate the complaint of such members.

With reference to Section 2, paragraph 26 of the BNS, the court pointed out that the definition of “person” expressly includes “any company or association or body of persons, whether registered or not”, and “the statutes do not prescribe any condition of formal membership, registration, entry in the commercial register or documentary proof of affiliation as a precondition for the recognition of an association of persons by law”. Whether the applicant is part of such an identifiable group must be proven by evidence during the trial, the court said.

It is important to note, the court said, that “the defendants have not specifically denied the allegation that they used or made the alleged defamatory statements and imputations against the RSS and its swayamsevaks. The defense raised by the accused is not a categorical denial of the act of publishing or making the impugned statements, but is limited to the contention that there is no personal grievance and defamation against him.”

However, the court clarified that it is not necessary to assess the veracity of the allegations in detail at the discovery stage, and all disputed issues – including the membership of the complainant and the intention of the accused persons – will be determined during the court proceedings.

Published – 1 Jul 2026 21:24 IST