RSS defamation case: Sessions court stays proceedings against Priyank Kharge, Nalapad

A special sessions court in Bengaluru on Wednesday stayed further proceedings in a defamation case filed by a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) member in a special magistrate court against Home Minister Priyank Kharge and Mohammed Haris Nalapada, son of Congress MLA NA Haris.

Shivaprasad KB, judge of the special court for criminal cases against former and present MPs and MLAs in Karnataka, passed the order on separate petitions filed by Mr. Kharge and Mr. Nalapad challenging the June 27 order to take cognizance of the offense of defamation under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Special Court against them (BNS.

Meanwhile, the Sessions Court issued a notice to Tejas A, an RSS member from Bengaluru, who had filed a defamation complaint alleging that Mr. Kharge, Mr. Nalapad and then Minister Dinesh Gundu Rao had allegedly made false, baseless and defamatory remarks against the RSS, its members and their activities through various media platforms. However, the court in October 2025 dropped the magistrate’s order against Mr. Rao.

The two had initially filed complaints against the magistrate court’s order in the High Court of Karnataka, which on October 1 said they had to approach the sessions court.

On behalf of Mr. Kharge and Mr. Nalapada, it was argued before the appellate court that the applicant had given inconsistent versions about his association with the RSS and had not produced any material to prove that he was a member of the RSS.

Citing some Supreme Court judgments, it has been argued that an “injured person” for the purposes of a defamation complaint must be a specific, identifiable person who has suffered a specific legal injury, and that this category does not include any and every person. “Since there is no material to show that the complainant is a member of RSS and therefore an aggrieved person, the complaint itself is not actionable,” it argued on their behalf.

After hearing arguments, the Court of Appeal found it necessary to stay the proceedings before the Magistrates’ Court to review the appellants’ contention that the appellant did not have standing to file the defamation complaint. The Magistrate’s Court proceeded against them by holding that the question of whether the applicant had standing as part of an identifiable group such as the RSS to be treated as an “aggrieved person” was a matter to be proved by evidence at trial.

Published – 7 Oct 2026 20:57 IST