On June 27, 2026, the XLII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Court, Bengaluru summoned Karnataka Home Minister Priyank Kharge and Youth Congress leader Mohammed Haris Nalapad in a private criminal defamation complaint filed by an RSS worker under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
According to LiveLaw, ACJM Sandeep Patil of Bengaluru City took cognizance of the complaint and directed both accused to appear in person before the court on July 21, 2026.
Background & Case History
The complaint was filed by A. Tejas, a Bengaluru resident and RSS worker, alleging a series of false, malicious, and defamatory statements made by the accused in October 2025.
The complaint, registered as a Criminal Complaint (C.C.) in Register No. III and styled Tejas A vs Priyank Kharge and Ors., originally named three accused: Priyank Kharge (Accused No. 1), Karnataka Health Minister Dinesh Gundu Rao (Accused No. 2), and Mohammed Haris Nalapad (Accused No. 3), as reported by Bar & Bench.
The complainant filed his deposition in December 2025, detailing the alleged defamatory acts attributed to each accused, per LiveLaw.
- October 4, 2025: Kharge allegedly wrote a letter to the Karnataka Chief Minister requesting that RSS activities be restricted in government schools, colleges, and public playgrounds — a letter subsequently shared on social media.
- October 13, 2025: Kharge allegedly published a defamatory post on X (formerly Twitter) targeting the RSS and its members, per Bar & Bench and India Legal.
- October 14, 2025: A second alleged defamatory post by Kharge appeared on X, according to LiveLaw and Bar & Bench.
- December 2025: Complainant A. Tejas filed his formal deposition before the ACJM Court, per LiveLaw.
- June 27, 2026: ACJM Sandeep Patil took cognizance of the complaint, dropped proceedings against Dinesh Gundu Rao, and issued summons to Kharge and Nalapad.
Arguments & Submissions
The complainant, A. Tejas, alleged through his deposition that the accused deliberately used offensive and derogatory language against the RSS as an organisation and its members, with the effect of lowering their reputation in public estimation.
The complaint covered social media posts on X by Kharge, a ministerial letter seeking to ban RSS activities on government premises, and statements made by Nalapad on a YouTube channel allegedly ridiculing RSS members, according to LiveLaw and India Legal.
A separate set of social media posts by Dinesh Gundu Rao — which questioned the RSS in connection with the killings of Gauri Lankesh, Govind Pansare, and M.M. Kalburgi — was also part of the original complaint, but did not survive the cognizance stage, as reported by Bar & Bench.
The Ruling: Key Findings
ACJM Sandeep Patil took cognizance of the defamation offence against Accused Nos. 1 and 3, while simultaneously dropping proceedings against Accused No. 2 after finding insufficient grounds to continue prosecution against him, per LiveLaw and Bar & Bench.
On the question of the statements attributed to Dinesh Gundu Rao specifically, the court found that they did not constitute a specific defamatory imputation against the RSS as an identifiable body, according to India Legal and the Organiser.
The court recorded the following in its order, as quoted by LiveLaw: “Cognizance is taken of the offence punishable under Section 356 of BNS, 2023 against accused Nos.1 and 3.”
In a further operative direction, the court stated: “Office is directed to register this case as a criminal case and issue summons to accused Nos.1 and 3, returnable by July 21, 2026.”
Explaining the basis for cognizance, ACJM Patil observed: “When a person deliberately uses offensive and derogatory language against a particular organization and its members, the natural and probable consequence of such conduct is to lower their reputation.”
The court also noted that none of the accused had withdrawn their statements or issued a public apology, and that the statements remained accessible on social media, per India Legal and LawBeat.
Legal Analysis & Implications
The case is being tried under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which is the provision governing criminal defamation under India’s new criminal code — replacing the erstwhile Section 499/500 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court clarified, as reported by India Legal and the Organiser, that the truthfulness of the allegations and any defence available to the accused would be examined during the trial on merits — the cognizance order being confined to a prima facie assessment only.
The selective dropping of proceedings against Dinesh Gundu Rao at the cognizance stage illustrates the threshold the court applied: a defamatory imputation must be directed against an identifiable body or its members with sufficient specificity to sustain criminal liability, a finding that will likely shape how the case is argued at trial.
The fact that the alleged statements remained live on social media — without retraction or apology — was expressly noted by the court as a relevant circumstance, signalling that the continued publication of such content weighs in favour of cognizance.
Reactions & Stakeholder Response
No official statements from Priyank Kharge, Mohammed Haris Nalapad, or their legal representatives had been reported by the primary sources at the time of publication.
The complaint was filed by A. Tejas acting as a private complainant in his capacity as an RSS worker and Bengaluru resident, with the proceedings driven entirely through the private criminal complaint route before the ACJM Court.
What’s Next
Both Priyank Kharge (Accused No. 1) and Mohammed Haris Nalapad (Accused No. 3) have been directed to appear in person before the XLII ACJM Court, Bengaluru on July 21, 2026, the next date of hearing in the matter, per LiveLaw and Bar & Bench.
The trial on merits — including evaluation of the accused’s defences and the truthfulness of the alleged imputations — is yet to begin, and any substantive adjudication on the merits of the defamation claim will follow after the accused enter appearance.
Full coverage: LiveLaw. More legal news at The Courtroom.
Disclaimer
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws may change or vary by case — consult a qualified lawyer before acting. The Courtroom is not liable for any reliance on this content.
