Who is entitled to complain? A Bengaluru Special Court wants that answered before the RSS Defamation Case against Karnataka Home Minister Priyank Kharge and Congress leader Mohammed Nalapad goes any further.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Bengaluru: A Special Court in Bengaluru has stayed further proceedings in a criminal defamation complaint against Karnataka Home Minister Priyank Kharge and Congress leader Mohammed Nalapad over their statements about the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). The stay holds until their revision petitions against the Magistrate’s order taking cognizance are heard [Priyank Kharge and Mohammed Nalapad v. A. Tejas].
Special Judge K.B. Shivaprasad passed the order on October 7, 2026, and listed the matter next for October 30, 2026. Senior Advocate Sandesh J. Chouta appeared for Kharge and Senior Advocate Vikram Huilgol for Nalapad.
From complaint to revision
The complaint was filed by A. Tejas under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (criminal defamation), alleging that statements by the two leaders about the RSS amount to defamation. These remain the complainant’s allegations. The accused have not been tried, no finding has been made against them, and the Special Court has expressed no view on the merits of the complaint.
The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, took cognizance and issued summons on June 27, 2026. Both accused took that order to the Special Court in revision.
What each side argued
Chouta, for Kharge, argued that the complainant had given inconsistent accounts of his RSS membership and produced nothing to back it up, so he could not be called an “aggrieved person” entitled to complain. Huilgol, for Nalapad, relied on Section 222(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which requires a complaint of this kind to come from an aggrieved person, and argued that the Magistrate had not adequately recorded reasons for taking cognizance.
The Magistrate had held that the complainant’s locus standi was a matter for trial. The Special Court was not prepared to treat the question as one that could simply wait.
“The authority to file the complaint is a primary requirement and under the said circumstance, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate requires examination in this revision.”
Proceedings before the Magistrate were stayed accordingly, until the revision petitions are decided.
What the stay does and does not decide
This is a procedural order. It decides nothing about what was said or whether it was defamatory. It does indicate that, in a criminal defamation complaint, the question of who may complain is being treated as a threshold issue, one that may need examining before the accused face a trial.
The complainant’s response to the revision petitions will be heard on the next date, after which the Special Court will decide whether the Magistrate’s order can stand.
Case Title: Priyank Kharge and Mohammed Nalapad v. A. Tejas (criminal revision against the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, dated June 27, 2026)
Bench: Special Judge K.B. Shivaprasad, Special Court, Bengaluru
Date of Order: October 7, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Sandesh J. Chouta (Priyank Kharge); Senior Advocate Vikram Huilgol (Mohammed Nalapad)