Court Dismisses Minister's Defamation Claim Against RSS Member

A special court in Bengaluru has rejected a contention by Karnataka Home and IT&BT Minister Priyank Kharge that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) cannot file defamation complaints. The court found the argument that the RSS is not a registered organization and lacks formal membership to be legally unsound.

A special court in Bengaluru has dismissed a legal argument made by Karnataka Minister Priyank Kharge. Kharge had contended that no member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) could file a criminal defamation complaint because the organization is not registered and does not have formal membership.

The court, presided over by Judge Sandeep Patil, described Kharge's argument as "wholly untenable and devoid of merit." The judge cited numerous past judicial decisions from High Courts and the Supreme Court that recognize the RSS as a definite and identifiable body. These precedents allow individual members of the RSS to file defamation complaints when the organization as a whole is targeted.

The defamation case was filed by Tejas A., an RSS member based in Bengaluru. The complaint named Priyank Kharge, Mohammed Haris Nalapad (son of Congress MLA N.A. Haris), and former Minister Dinesh Gundi Rao as accused. They were alleged to have made false, baseless, and derogatory remarks against the RSS, its members, and their activities across various media platforms in October 2025.

After reviewing arguments from all three accused, the court decided to drop proceedings against Dinesh Gundi Rao. However, the court found sufficient prima facie evidence to proceed with the criminal defamation offense under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against Kharge and Nalapad.

The court pointed out a contradiction in the accused's defense. They referred to the RSS and its members using terms like "RSS members" and "swayamsevaks," thereby acknowledging the existence of an identifiable group. Simultaneously, they argued against the maintainability of the complaint by denying the existence of such members due to the RSS's lack of registration.

Citing Section 2(26) of the BNS, the court noted that the definition of "person" includes "any company or association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not." The law, according to the court, does not require formal membership, registration, or incorporation for a body of persons to be recognized legally. The complainant's membership in such a group would be determined during the trial.

The court also highlighted that the accused did not specifically deny making the alleged derogatory statements. Their defense focused on the complainant's alleged lack of locus standi and the absence of personal defamation, rather than a categorical denial of publishing the statements.

At this stage of taking cognisance, the court is not required to delve deeply into the truthfulness of the allegations. All disputed issues, including the complainant's membership and the accused's intentions, will be examined during the trial.

The case stems from alleged derogatory remarks made against the RSS and its members by politicians in October 2025. The legal challenge by Minister Priyank Kharge questioned the standing of an RSS member to file a defamation suit, arguing the organization's unregistered status invalidated such claims. This ruling clarifies that unregistered organizations can still be subjects of defamation law, and their members can represent them in legal proceedings.

This court ruling has significant implications for defamation law in India, particularly concerning organizations that are not formally registered. By affirming that an unregistered body like the RSS can be the subject of defamation and that its members have the locus standi to file complaints, the court has reinforced established legal principles. The judge's observation on the accused 'approbating and reprobating' highlights a common legal tactic where parties acknowledge an entity's existence to make a point, then deny it to evade legal responsibility. This decision ensures that individuals cannot selectively deny the existence of an organization they have previously acknowledged, thereby strengthening the framework for protecting reputations against false and derogatory statements.

The criminal defamation case will now proceed to trial. During the trial, evidence will be presented to determine the truthfulness of the alleged derogatory statements made by Priyank Kharge and Mohammed Haris Nalapad, as well as their intentions. The court will also examine the complainant's membership status within the RSS.