Bengaluru Court Dismisses Priyank Kharge’s Plea in RSS Defamation Case

A special court has ruled that individual RSS members are legally entitled to file defamation complaints, rejecting the minister’s argument that the organization’s lack of registration invalidates such claims.

The legal battle over political rhetoric in Karnataka has taken a sharp turn. A special court in Bengaluru, presiding over cases involving MPs and MLAs, has officially rejected a contention raised by state Minister Priyank Kharge. The minister had argued that a criminal defamation complaint could not be maintained by an RSS member because the organization is not formally registered. Judge Sandeep Patil dismissed this claim as “wholly untenable,” paving the way for the case against the minister to proceed.

The complaint, filed by Bengaluru-based RSS member Tejas A., centers on remarks made in October 2025. The petitioner alleged that Priyank Kharge, along with Mohammed Haris Nalapad and former Minister Dinesh Gundu Rao, used derogatory language against the RSS and its members across various media platforms. While the court dropped the proceedings against Mr. Rao, it found prima facie evidence sufficient to take cognizance of the offence against Mr. Kharge and Mr. Nalapad under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The Court’s Reasoning

In his June 27 order, Judge Patil drew on established judicial precedents from both High Courts and the Supreme Court. The court clarified that the RSS is an “identifiable body or class of persons,” meaning that defamatory statements directed at the organization can indeed be challenged by its individual members.

A critical part of the court’s observation focused on the inconsistency in the defense's strategy. The judge noted that the accused could not “approbate and reprobate simultaneously.” By referring to “RSS members” and “swayamsevaks” in their public statements, the leaders had already acknowledged the existence of an identifiable group. The court reasoned that they could not then pivot to denying the organization's existence solely to evade the maintainability of a legal complaint.

Why it Matters

This ruling carries significant weight for how political discourse is policed in India. By affirming that the RSS acts as an identifiable class for the purposes of defamation law, the court has set a clear boundary for public figures. It signals that when politicians target large, well-defined organizations, they risk legal exposure not just from the entity as a whole, but from the individuals who represent it.

For the Karnataka government, this development adds a layer of legal complexity to an already charged political atmosphere. As the case moves forward, it will likely serve as a reference point for future litigation involving the balance between free speech and the rights of groups—registered or otherwise—to defend their reputation in court. The distinction between political criticism and actionable defamation continues to shrink, placing even greater pressure on leaders to curate their rhetoric carefully.