[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Rahul Gandhi vs Bharatiya Janata Party on 17 February, 2026
Author: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:9535
CRL.P No. 14473 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14473 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. RAHUL GANDHI
S/O LATE RAJIV GANDHI
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT: C/O SONIA GANDHI, 10
JANPATH, NEW DELHI
G.P.O., NEW DELHI
DELHI - 110 001.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE A/W
MS. ANISHKA VAISHNAV, ADVOCATE AND
SRI HARSHA G.L., ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by
VIJAYA P
Location: 1. BHARATIYA JANATA PARTY
HIGH
COURT OF NO.48, JAGANNATHA BHAVANA
KARNATAKA TEMPLE STREET
11TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE - 560 003
REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE SECRETARY
BJP KARNATAKA
S KESHAVA PRASAD
S/O LATE SIDDALINGAIAHSETTY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VINOD KUMAR M., ADVOCATE)
NC: 2026:KHC:9535
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH
THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.
NO.7399/2024 (P.C.R. 3878/2023), FOR THE ALLEGED
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER 499 AND 500 OF THE INDIAN
PENAL CODE, 1860 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XLII ADDL.
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU (SPECIAL COURT
FOR TRAIL OF CASES FILED AGAINST SITTING AS WELL AS
FORMER MP/MLA'S, TRIABLE BY MAGISTRATE IN THE STATE OF
KARNATAKA), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 18.12.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
C.A.V. ORDER
PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
The petitioner who is accused No.4 has filed the
present petition seeking for setting aside of the
proceedings pending in C.C.No.7399/2024 (P.C.R.No.
3878/2023) for the alleged offences punishable under
Sections 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code, pending on
the file of XLII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru.
NC: 2026:KHC:9535
HC-KAR
2. The parties are referred to by their description
in the proceedings before the trial Court.
3. The complaint under Sections 190 and 200 of
Cr.P.C. came to be filed by the complainant viz., Bharatiya
Janata Party, represented by its State Secretary,
S. Keshava Prasad.
4. The complaint narrates that the accused No.1
i.e., the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee which is
a part of Indian National Congress, the accused No.2 - the
President of the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee,
accused No.3 - the leader of Opposition i.e., of the
Congress Party (at the relevant point of time) and accused
No.4 - the Former Vice President of Indian National
Congress, had conspired and issued an advertisement on
05.05.2023 by making reckless imputations against the
complainant. The advertisement, it is alleged was
defamatory and published in main stream newspapers.
NC: 2026:KHC:9535
HC-KAR
5. It is submitted that the allegations made in the
advertisement made a clear reference to the time period
of 2019 to 2023 which would indicate that the reference
made in the advertisement was against the complainant.
The complaint further narrates that the insinuations made
in the said advertisement have tarnished the image of the
complainant's Government.
6. It is further asserted that the accused No.4 who
was actively campaigning for the Congress Party had put
up the advertisement in his Twitter account, which would
reveal that the advertisement related to the complainant.
It is asserted that the accused No.4 has issued directions
to accused Nos. 1 and 2 to proceed to advertise and such
publication has defamed the complainant.
7. It is submitted that legal notice came to be
issued calling upon the accused to withdraw the
allegations. In light of absence of response, complaint has
been filed.
NC: 2026:KHC:9535
HC-KAR
8. It is noticed from the records produced that
upon presentation of the complaint, cognizance was taken
on 13.06.2023 and case was posted for sworn statement
of complainant on 27.07.2023. The order sheet would
indicate that sworn statement of the complainant was
recorded and Exs. C1 to C14 were marked. Subsequently,
C.W.2 to C.W.5 were examined. The Court heard
arguments before issuing process to the accused on
23.02.2024. A detailed order came to be passed on
23.02.2024 while issuing summons.
9. The trial Court has taken note of the sworn
statement, copy of authorisation, the documents marked
as Exs.C1 to C14 and found that prima facie version of the
complainant was supported. The Court also took note of
statements of C.W.2 and C.W.5. The trial Court has held
that the complainant could be construed to be a 'person'.
It records that there were sufficient grounds for issuance
of notice under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. and accordingly,
NC: 2026:KHC:9535
HC-KAR
order is passed to register criminal case for the offence
under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC and summons has
been issued to accused 1 to 4.
10. The accused No.4 has then approached this
Court seeking for setting aside of the proceedings.
11. The petitioner has contended that:
advertisement relied on by the complainant does not
contain any imputation against the complainant or any
other identifiable individual; that the publication contains
no material linking such advertisement to accused No.4;
that the complaint is based on tweet of accused No.4
which has not been marked or exhibited before the trial
Court; that the case rests on subjective inferences and
perceptions of the complaint and not based on any
objective material; that there is no evidence that accused
no. 4 "gave instructions" to carry out the publication; that
complaint ought to have been filed by the Government of
Karnataka in accordance with Section 199(2) and 199(4)
NC: 2026:KHC:9535
HC-KAR
of Cr.P.C. and the present complainant lacks locus standi
to prosecute the complaint of defamation; that the tweet
referred has neither been marked nor supported by 65B
certificate (Indian Evidence Act) and cannot be looked
into; that the order issuing process lacks application of
mind; that the complainant is not the aggrieved person;
that accused No.4 possessed no position of authority at
the relevant point of time and that there could be no
vicarious liability fastened on accused No.4 in the absence
of specific allegation.
12. The learned counsel for the respondent -
complainant would submit that: the Magistrate has rightly
recorded a finding and at the stage of issuing process
prima facie satisfaction is sufficient and evidentiary value
to be attached to the documents is a matter to be
established during trial; the copy of the petitioner's twitter
handle with evidence of witnesses establishes the intent
behind the advertisement to defame; that the definition of
'person' would include juridical persons; that there could
NC: 2026:KHC:9535
HC-KAR
be defamation even of a political party as there is
organizational reputation; that there is common intention
contemplated under Section 34 of IPC which makes all of
the accused responsible and legally liable; that the
propagation of the defamatory advertisement through
twitter handle would make the accused No.4 liable and
that the exceptions under Section 499 would not protect
the accused No.4 and Section 199 Cr.P.C is not applicable.
13. Heard both sides.
14. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Shashi Kiran
Shetty, representing Sri. Nishit Kumar Shetty, learned
counsel, has advanced arguments on behalf of the
petitioner while learned counsel Sri. Vinod Kumar M, has
advanced arguments for the respondent.
15. For the purpose of initiating proceedings
relating to an offence of defamation, the sine qua non is
that proceedings should be initiated by "some person
aggrieved". Section 199 of Cr.P.C embodies such
NC: 2026:KHC:9535
HC-KAR
procedural requirement and Section 199(1) reads as
follows:
"No Court shall take cognizance of an offence
punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint made
by some person aggrieved by the offence:
Provided that where such person is under the age
of eighteen years, or is an idiot or a lunatic, or is
from sickness or infirmity unable to make a
complaint, or is a woman who, according to the
local customs and manners, ought not to be
compelled to appear in public, some other person
may, with the leave of the Court, make a
complaint on his or her behalf."
(emphasis supplied)
16. It is a settled position that absent such
requirement, proceedings at the instance of any other
person would render the proceedings void. In the case of
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Ministry of
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9535
HC-KAR
Law and others1, the Apex Court in Para 198 has held as
under:
"198. The said provision is criticised on the
ground that "some person aggrieved" is on a
broader spectrum and that is why, it allows all
kinds of persons to take recourse to defamation.
As far as the concept of "some person aggrieved"
is concerned, we have referred to a plethora of
decisions in course of our deliberations to show
how this Court has determined the concept of
"some person aggrieved". While dealing with
various Explanations, it has been clarified about
definite identity of the body of persons or
collection of persons. In fact, it can be stated that
the "person aggrieved" is to be determined by the
courts in each case according to the fact
situation. It will require ascertainment on due
deliberation of the facts. In John Thomas v. K.
Jagadeesan2 while dealing with "person
aggrieved", the Court opined that the test is
whether the complainant has reason to feel hurt
on account of publication is a matter to be
determined by the court depending upon the facts
(2016) 7 SCC 221
(2001) 6 SCC 30 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 974
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9535
HC-KAR
of each case. In S. Khushboo3, while dealing with
"person aggrieved", a three-Judge Bench has
opined that the respondents therein were not
"person aggrieved" within the meaning of Section
199(1) CrPC as there was no specific legal injury
caused to any of the complainants since the
appellant's remarks were not directed at any
individual or readily identifiable group of people.
The Court placed reliance on M.S.
Jayaraj v. Commr. of Excise4 and G.
Narasimhan5 and observed that if a Magistrate
were to take cognizance of the offence of
defamation on a complaint filed by one who is not
an "aggrieved person", the trial and conviction of
an accused in such a case by the Magistrate
would be void and illegal. Thus, it is seen that the
words "some person aggrieved" are determined
by the courts depending upon the facts of the
case. Therefore, the submission that it can
include any and everyone as a "person aggrieved"
is too specious a submission to be accepted."
(2010) 5 SCC 600 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1299
(2000) 7 SCC 552
(1972) 2 SCC 680 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 777
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9535
HC-KAR
17. Accordingly, the question as to whether the
complainant herein could be person aggrieved requires
recording of a finding.
18. The complainant before the trial Court is
"Bharatiya Janata Party, represented by its State
Secretary, BJP Karnataka, S.Keshava Prasad". Complaint
is brought before the Court by the aforesaid entity who for
all purposes is held out to be the person aggrieved.
19. A perusal of the complaint would reveal that the
complainant is the National party as made out in Para 4, 8
and 9 of the complaint.
20. The complaint appears to indicate that its State
Unit, the Government formed by it (BJP Sarkar) and the
complainant i.e., the Bharatiya Janata Party (National
Party) have been defamed. However, the complainant who
has brought the legal grievance before the Court is the
National Party i.e., Bharatiya Janata Party. If that were to
be so, and the aggrieved person is the National Party i.e.,
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9535
HC-KAR
Bharatiya Janata Party, then the complaint ought to have
been filed by the duly authorized representative of the
National Party. However, the letter of authorisation is
issued by the President of the State Unit to its Secretary of
the State Unit as made out by Ex.C.1. Such authorisation
of the President of the Sate Unit cannot be accepted as
legal authorisation to represent the BJP as a National
Party. Further, there is no material to indicate that the
Bharatiya Janata Party had authorised the President of the
Karnataka Unit to initiate proceedings. Accordingly, the
complainant is not represented by a competent person and
in the absence of which the aggrieved person being
represented by an incompetent person, vitiates the
proceedings.
21. The procedural requirement of complaint being
brought before the Magistrate by "some person aggrieved"
would require the entity defamed in the present case to
bring the complaint. The complaint broadly appears to
make out a case that it is the party that is the aggrieved
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9535
HC-KAR
person. The complainant seeks to make out a case by
asserting that the allegations made in the advertisement
at Exhibit-C series i.e., C2 to C6 makes an imputation to
the complainant.
22. Insofar as accused No.4 and his role in
publication of the advertisement, a perusal of
advertisement at Exhibit-C series would indicate that
except for the photograph of accused No.4 there is no
other apparent nexus of accused No.4 with the
advertisement.
23. In an action which seeks to fasten criminal
liability, it must be demonstrated that the imputation
made must be at the instance of a person who has mens
rea to defame. This legal requirement comes out from the
language of the provision as Section 499 of IPC stipulates
that the person who is stated to have committed the act of
defamation, must be a person "intending to harm or
knowing or having reason to believe". In the absence of
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9535
HC-KAR
any material to show that the advertisement was at the
instance of accused No.4, the reliance on the
advertisement by itself could not lead to the assertion that
it was published by accused No.4 with the requisite
intention to defame.
24. Accused No.4 may have been a leader of the
party but did not hold any position in the organizational
hierarchy as on the relevant date as is made out by the
memo dated 11.02.2025. In terms of the memo, it is
specifically made out that the accused No.4 was neither
the President nor the Vice President of the Indian National
Congress as on the date of advertisement. A mere
photograph on the advertisement would not be sufficient
to indicate that the advertisement was at the instance of
accused No.4 when the legal provision stipulates that the
person must have requisite mens rea.
25. The position of the accused No.4 is different
and in contradistinction to the other accused and their
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9535
HC-KAR
nexus to the advertisement by virtue of their position and
the contextual background of the complaint.
26. It is however necessary to notice that the
complainant's complaint also refers to tweet of accused
No.4 wherein he is stated to have tweeted the
advertisement along with certain additional remarks. It is
stated that the said tweet in specific refers to BJP while
forwarding the advertisement which would tie down
accused No.4 as having defamed the complainant.
However, strangely the text of the said tweet has not been
marked along with other documents while sworn
statement was recorded nor any Section 65B certificate
produced in requisite format.
27. The trial Judge when taking cognizance has
made reference to documents at Exs.C.1 to C14 which
does not include the said tweet. If the order of the trial
Judge issuing process has been passed after applying his
mind to the material before him and such material in the
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9535
HC-KAR
form of tweet was not marked as an exhibit, then what
material would remain is only the advertisement before
the Court when order was passed issuing summons. Sans
the tweet, the advertisement by itself as noticed above
cannot lead to any presumption of accused No.4 having
defamed the complainant.
28. Insofar as the offence of defamation as regards
an entity, Explanation 2 to Section 499 of IPC does
indicate that there could be defamation of an entity such
as the company or an association or collection of persons.
Explanation 2 to Section 499 of IPC reads as follows:
"Explanation 2.-- It may amount to defamation to
make an imputation concerning a company or an
association or collection of persons as such."
29. An imputation that 'party X' is corrupt, is by
itself defamatory and the entity which is alleged to be
corrupt could be the political party. However, where the
imputation made is against certain individuals or class of
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9535
HC-KAR
persons in the entity, then the person aggrieved would be
such individuals or class of persons within the larger entity
who have been defamed.
30. Such legal exposition comes forth in the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S. Khushboo
v. Kanniammal and another 6 as extracted below:
"26. .............. Undoubtedly, the Explanation is wide
but in order to demonstrate the offence of
defamation, such a collection of persons must be
an identifiable body so that it is possible to say
with precision that a group of particular persons,
as distinguished from the rest of the community
stood defamed. In case the identity of the
collection of persons is not established so as to be
relatable to the defamatory words or imputations,
the complaint is not maintainable. In case a class
is mentioned, if such a class is indefinite, the
complaint cannot be entertained. Furthermore, if it
is not possible to ascertain the composition of such
a class, the criminal prosecution cannot proceed."
(2010) 5 SCC 600
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9535
HC-KAR
31. Where a functionary such an office bearer of the
party is defamed, then such functionary who would be the
aggrieved person. In the present case, the imputation
itself is by way of innuendo and such imputation is sought
to be stretched to the party. However, sans the tweet the
advertisement by itself makes no reference to the party
but rather makes an imputation to the functionaries
mentioned in the advertisement. The reference that is
made in the advertisement is to constitutional
functionaries and Government employees being
beneficiaries and to the irregularities in Government
Schemes. None of the persons or entities referred to
above are before this Court. Accordingly, the aggrieved
person in the advertisement at Exhibit-C series factually
cannot be the political party.
32. There have been series procedural lapses as
well since there is no enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C.
which is mandated where the accused is outside the
territorial jurisdiction of the Court. Objective of such
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9535
HC-KAR
enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. is to ensure that
accused situated outside the territorial limits are not
dragged into litigation before a Court without the Court
being convinced of a prima facie case being made out to
issue summons to the accused, after an enquiry.
Considering that accused No.4 resides outside the
territorial limits of the Court, non following of Section 202
of Cr.P.C. procedure has prejudiced the said accused and
would also reveal a very casual approach of the
complainant in not insisting for such enquiry before
summons is issued to accused no.4.
33. The Court while issuing summons ought to
apply its mind so as to ensure that the consequence of
issuing process to an accused and thereby making him a
part of the prosecution of the complaint cannot be done
casually. The Court when issuing process has to make up
its mind that atleast a prima facie case is made out
against the accused. In the present case material before
the Magistrate in the form of Ex.C1 to C14 consists only of
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9535
HC-KAR
the advertisement and on the basis of such material as
discussed above, no case is made out against accused
No.4.
34. Though learned counsel for the complainant
would contend that the tweet of accused No.4 is found in
the file and would be marked at a subsequent stage,
however, such explanation cannot cure the legal defect of
not having the tweet on record when process was issued
to the accused No.4. The marking of the Tweet though
without 65B certificate would still have made a difference
insofar as 65B certificate could have been produced at a
subsequent point of time. However, absence the marking
of the tweet, the material before the trial Judge when
process is issued is legally deficient as there is no material
to connect the accused No.4 with the offence of
defamation.
35. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The
continuance of the proceedings would amount to an abuse
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9535
HC-KAR
of the legal process and the proceedings in
C.C.No.7399/2024 (P.C.R.No. 3878/2023) insofar as the
petitioner - accused No.4 is concerned, is set aside.
Sd/-
(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
VP
