Today, On 12th September in the Farmer Protest Remark, Supreme Court Denies Relief to Kangana Ranaut in Defamation Case Over Farmers’ Protest Tweet, Matter Considered Withdrawn After Hearing Arguments: “It Wasn’t Just a Re-Tweet, You Added Your Own Spice.”
The Supreme Court heard the case arising from a defamation dispute linked to Kangana Ranaut’s remarks during the farmers’ protest.
The Bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, took up the matter, which involved a re-tweet by Ms Kangana Ranaut.
During the proceedings, the counsel representing the matter explained,
“This matter is regarding a re tweet by Ms Kangana Ranaut. The original tweet had already been widely retweeted by others, and it referred to Bilkis Bano or the Shaheen Bagh dadi, not the respondent.”
Justice Mehta questioned the counsel about Ranaut’s own comments, stating,
“What about your remarks? It wasn’t just a re-tweet you added your own spice. That’s for trial to examine.”
The counsel also informed the Court that they could not travel to Punjab, claiming,
“The Trial Court didn’t consider my clarification while issuing summons.”
Justice Mehta clarified,
“The Trial Court only had to look at the contents of the complaint. Please don’t make us comment on that it may prejudice the trial.”
After hearing the arguments, the Supreme Court dismissed the matter as withdrawn.
The complaint was lodged by Mahinder Kaur, a 73-year-old resident of Bahadurgarh Jandian village in Punjab’s Bathinda district, in 2021.
In her complaint to a Bathinda court, Kaur claimed that Ranaut made “false imputations and remarks” by suggesting in her retweet that Kaur was the same “dadi” as Bilkis Bano, a prominent figure from the Shaheen Bagh protest.
Kaur stated, as noted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in its August 1 ruling,
“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,” .
The court order further explained,
“A reading of the impugned order as a whole, makes it apparent that the Magistrate (Bathinda court) has duly applied mind to the material on record, and only after recording satisfaction that commission of offence under Sections 499 IPC is prima facie made out against the petitioner, the process has been issued…”
The petition was filed under Section 482 of the former CrPC to quash the complaint lodged under Sections 499 and 500 of the now-repealed IPC, as well as the trial court’s summoning order from February 22, 2022. Kaur indicated that she participated in various protests from the onset of the farmer’s agitation and traveled to Delhi to join the demonstrations, despite her advanced age.
She emphasized that she had no connection to the woman from Shaheen Bagh who was featured in ‘Time magazine‘, with whom she was compared in Ranaut’s tweet.
Kaur alleged that Ranaut’s remarks were “false imputation and defamatory,” which harmed her pride, honor, and reputation on social media.
Kangana’s legal team contended in the high court that the Bathinda court’s summoning order was not valid as it violated the criminal procedure code. They argued that since the report from Twitter Communications India Private Limited (TCIPL) had not been received, the magistrate should not have summoned Ranaut.
Furthermore, it was claimed that Ranaut had no intention of damaging Kaur’s reputation.
Justice Dahiya noted in his ruling,
“Non-receipt of report by TCIPL as to whether the alleged retweet has been made by the petitioner, cannot be a ground to divest the Magistrate (of court in Bathinda) of jurisdiction under Section 202 CrPC. The report could not be submitted as the company was neither the owner nor in control of twitter.com, and was a separate entity engaged only in research, development and marketing.”
The ongoing complaint before the trial court claims that Ranaut suggested the elderly woman farmer was deceitfully showcased in the media for financial gain. The tweet in question made a comparison to another activist and included offensive comments.
Earlier, On February 22, 2022, a magistrate in Bathinda issued summons to Ranaut under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. In response, Ranaut filed a petition with the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to have the proceedings dismissed.
Earlier, On August 1, the Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected Ranaut’s request to quash the summons, stating that the magistrate had considered the matter before issuing the summons and that there was sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of defamation.
Case Title: Kangana Ranaut v. Mahinder Kaur, (SLP (Crl) No. 13756/2025),