Karnataka Court: Stays Kharge RSS Defamation Over Locus Standi

• A Bengaluru special court stayed criminal defamation proceedings against Karnataka Home Minister Priyank Kharge and Congress leader Mohammed Nalapad.
• The court disagreed with a magistrate's view that *locus standi* should only be decided at trial, emphasizing its importance at the preliminary stage.
• Special Judge KB Shivaprasad ruled that the *authority to file a complaint* is a primary requirement in criminal defamation cases.
• The case involves alleged defamatory statements made about the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).
• The original complaint, which led to summons for the accused, was filed under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

By explicitly asserting that the *authority to file a criminal defamation complaint* is a 'primary requirement' subject to preliminary examination, the court has provided a crucial clarification that could significantly impact how such cases are handled from their inception.

A Bengaluru special court has issued a stay on the ongoing criminal defamation proceedings initiated against Karnataka Home Minister Priyank Kharge and Congress leader Mohammed Nalapad. The case stems from statements allegedly made by the two political figures concerning the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Presiding over the matter, Special Judge KB Shivaprasad fundamentally disagreed with a lower magistrate's previous determination that the *locus standi* of a complainant should exclusively be an issue addressed during the trial phase, rather than at a preliminary juncture. The special judge underscored that the *authority to file a complaint* constitutes a fundamental prerequisite in any criminal defamation case, demanding thorough scrutiny at an earlier stage of the legal process. Following this decision, the court has issued a formal notice to the complainant, A Tejas, and has requested all relevant records pertaining to the case for further examination.

This significant procedural development emerged from criminal revision petitions filed by the accused, which directly challenged an order issued on June 27, 2026, by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Bengaluru. That prior order had taken cognizance of an alleged defamation offense, specifically citing Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), against both Priyank Kharge and Mohammed Nalapad, subsequently issuing summons for their appearance in court. During the revision hearing, Senior Advocate Sandesh J Chouta, representing Priyank Kharge, presented compelling arguments questioning the complainant's standing to bring the action. Chouta highlighted alleged inconsistencies in the complainant's various accounts regarding his purported affiliation with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, asserting a failure to provide concrete, material evidence that would substantiate his claim of RSS membership. This line of argument directly challenged the complainant's *authority to file the complaint defamation*, suggesting a critical lack of proper standing to initiate the proceedings on behalf of the organization.

The Bengaluru Special Court's decision carries substantial weight for the procedural landscape of criminal defamation cases across India, particularly under the recently enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. By explicitly asserting that the *authority to file a criminal defamation complaint* is a 'primary requirement' subject to preliminary examination, the court has provided a crucial clarification that could significantly impact how such cases are handled from their inception. This ruling directly counters the previous notion, as held by the magistrate, that fundamental questions of *locus standi* should be deferred exclusively to the trial stage, potentially prolonging proceedings unnecessarily. For legal practitioners, this judgment establishes an important precedent, offering an early and robust avenue for challenging the very foundation of a criminal defamation complaint. It underscores that the complainant's right to bring the action, especially concerning alleged harm to an organization like the RSS, must be robustly established at the outset, rather than being presumed until a later point in the judicial process. This emphasis on early scrutiny of *RSS criminal defamation locus standi* could streamline cases and prevent unwarranted litigation.

This ruling clarifies that the authority to file a criminal defamation complaint (locus standi) is a primary requirement that can be examined and challenged at the preliminary stage, rather than solely during trial. Lawyers should note this procedural precedent when drafting or defending against criminal defamation cases, particularly under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, as it offers an early avenue for challenging complaints.

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlets