A Mavelikara magistrate has issued notice to former Kerala Director General of Police R Sreelekha on a Rahul Gandhi defamation complaint filed by a Kerala Congress office-bearer, over remarks said to have been made at a BJP meeting in Punalur.
Mavelikara: Remarks allegedly made about Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi at a political meeting in October have led to a Rahul Gandhi defamation complaint against former Kerala Director General of Police R Sreelekha, on which a magistrate court in Kerala has now issued notice. The complaint is a private complaint of criminal defamation, and it has been listed for further consideration on December 2, 2026 [KP Sreekumar v. R Sreelekha].
The notice was issued on November 10, 2026 by Judicial First Class Magistrate Soorya S Sukumaran of Mavelikara. The complainant is KP Sreekumar, General Secretary of the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee, who was represented by Advocate Saran Sivan.
The speech at Punalur
As per the complaint, the words in question were spoken on October 14 at a meeting organised by the Bharatiya Janata Party’s Kollam East District committee in Punalur. The meeting was held in support of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The complaint alleges that Sreelekha, in her speech, linked Gandhi’s conduct during protests in Delhi to excessive drug consumption.
The complaint states:
“That by making the aforesaid statement, the Accused falsely and maliciously alleged that Shri Rahul Gandhi’s behavior during a democratic protest in Delhi resembled that of a person acting under the severe influence of drugs and narcotics.”
Legal notice first, complaint after
According to the complaint, a legal notice dated October 15 was sent to Sreelekha, seeking an unconditional public apology, a retraction of the remarks and compensation for mental agony. Sreekumar then filed the complaint on October 20, invoking Section 356(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The provision deals with making or publishing an imputation about a person intending, knowing or having reason to believe that it will harm that person’s reputation, subject to the exceptions in the provision.
Reputation, as the complainant puts it
Sreekumar says he watched a Mathrubhumi News broadcast of the speech, and that the remarks were then circulated on television channels, digital platforms and in newspapers. He alleges that the statements were false, malicious and deliberately aimed at damaging Gandhi’s reputation. They were also meant, he alleges, to collectively harm the reputation of the Indian National Congress and its workers and office-bearers, including himself as a senior party functionary.
Where the case stands
The matter is at the notice stage. The allegations are those of the complainant and have not been tested in court, and Sreelekha’s response to the complaint is not yet on record. The Court has expressed no view on the merits. She is entitled to the presumption of innocence and to raise any defence or statutory exception available under the law when the matter is taken up.
Why the order matters
Political speeches have become a frequent trigger for criminal defamation complaints in election-season politics, and such complaints are brought by parties across the spectrum. Under the BNSS, a magistrate taking cognizance of a private complaint must give the proposed accused an opportunity of being heard, which is why notice is issued at this stage.
Whether the words spoken at the Punalur meeting amount to an imputation under Section 356 BNS will be the central question. So will whether the complainant, as a party office-bearer, is a person aggrieved, and whether any exception, such as fair comment on public conduct, applies.
Case Title: KP Sreekumar v. R Sreelekha
Court: Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mavelikara (Soorya S Sukumaran)
Date of Order: November 10, 2026
Next Date: December 2, 2026
For the Complainant: Advocate Saran Sivan
