Today, On 1st August, P&H High Court dismisses Kangana Ranaut’s plea to quash a defamation case over her tweet during the farmers’ protest, citing “false and defamatory imputations by a celebrity” that allegedly damaged the complainant’s image and reputation.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court declined to dismiss a defamation case against actor-turned-politician Kangana Ranaut, stemming from her controversial tweet regarding the farmers’ protests in 2021.
In her social media post, Ranaut accused an elderly protester, Mahinder Kaur, of being compensated to participate in the protests.
Kaur initiated the case on January 4, 2021, and after approximately 13 months of hearings, the court issued a summons for Kangana to appear. In response, Kangana filed a petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court to have the case dismissed, but her petition was rejected.
The tweet she shared stated,
“Ha ha ha she is the same dadi who featured in Time magazine for being the most powerful Indian…And she is available in 100 rupees. Pakistani jurno’s have hijacked international PR for India in an embarrassing way. We need our own people to speak for us internationally.”
Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya noted that there were specific allegations against Ranaut, emphasizing that her retweet contained false and defamatory statements that harmed Kaur’s reputation.
He stated,
“Therefore, filing of the complaint to vindicate her rights cannot be termed mala fide…In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the petition, and it stands dismissed.”
The complaint argued that Ranaut’s retweet implied that the elderly farmer was fraudulently portrayed in the media for monetary gain. It included derogatory comparisons to other activists.
While rejecting the plea, Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya noted in the order,
“There are specific allegations against the petitioner who is a celebrity, that false and defamatory imputations by her in the retweet have dented the respondent’s reputation and lowered her in her own estimation, as also in the eyes of others. Therefore, filing of the complaint to vindicate her rights cannot be termed mala fide.”
Subsequently, the magistrate sought a report from Twitter (now X) after preliminary evidence was recorded, but this was not provided due to jurisdictional constraints. As a result, the magistrate summoned Ranaut based on the existing evidence, prompting her to appeal to the High Court against this summons.
During the hearing, Ranaut’s legal team claimed that the summoning was inappropriate due to the absence of the Twitter report, lack of intent to defame, and failure to consider exceptions outlined in Section 499 (defamation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). They also argued that the magistrate misinterpreted the tweet and overlooked the original poster.
In contrast, Kaur’s counsel maintained that sufficient evidence had been presented to establish a prima facie case of defamation, asserting that the magistrate correctly issued the summons after Twitter’s failure to provide the requested information.
The Court concluded that the magistrate had adequately assessed the situation, conducted the necessary inquiry, and identified prima facie evidence of defamation.
It stated,
“In the instant case, after inquiry the Magistrate was prima facie satisfied that the retweet was by the petitioner, and the facts alleged in the compliant would constitute the offence under Section 499 IPC.”
The ruling indicated that the report from Twitter was not essential for the inquiry, and Ranaut failed to demonstrate that her retweet fell within any exceptions. It further noted that even if the magistrate mistakenly referred to Ranaut’s retweet as a tweet in the order, this did not imply a failure to apply legal reasoning.
Overall, the Court upheld the magistrate’s decision, emphasizing that it was made with due consideration of the evidence and relevant laws.
Advocates Abhinav Sood, Anmol Gupta, Achintaya Soni, Mehndi Singhal, Dhruv Chowfla, and Nitesh Jha represented Ranaut, while Senior Advocate GK Mann and Associates Aditya Dassaur and Armaan Sand represented Kaur.
Case Title: Kangana Ranaut v Mahinder_Kaur
Read Attachment