Court rejects Priyank’s claim against RSS member in defamation case

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

The View From India Looking at World Affairs from the Indian perspective.

First Day First Show News and reviews from the world of cinema and streaming.

Today's Cache Your download of the top 5 technology stories of the day.

Data Point Decoding the headlines with facts, figures, and numbers

Health Matters Ramya Kannan writes to you on getting to good health, and staying there

The Hindu On Books Books of the week, reviews, excerpts, new titles and features.

In a setback to Home and IT&BT Minister Priyank Kharge, a special court in Bengaluru has rejected his contention that no member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) can maintain a criminal defamation complaint because the RSS is “not a registered organisation and it does not maintain any registered membership”.

The court termed Mr. Kharge’s contention as “wholly untenable and devoid of merit” while referring to various past judicial precedents, in which the High Courts and the apex court have clearly declared that “the RSS is a definite, determinate, and identifiable body or class of persons; and consequently, where defamatory imputations are made against the RSS as an organisation, an individual member of the RSS is competent to maintain a complaint for defamation.”

Sandeep Patil, judge of the special court of magistrate for criminal cases against former and present MPs and MLAs in Karnataka, made these observations in his June 27 order of taking cognisance of the offence of criminal defamation under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against Mr. Kharge, and Mohammed Haris Nalapad, son of Congress MLA N.A. Haris, on a defamation case filed by Bengaluru-based RSS member Tejas A.

The complaint was filed arraying Mr. Kharge, Mr. Nalapad and the then Minister Dinesh Gundi Rao as accused persons for allegedly making false, baseless and derogatory remarks against the RSS, its members and their activities through various media platforms in October 2025.

However, the court, after hearing the arguments on behalf of all the three accused, dropped proceedings against Mr. Rao while taking cognisance of offence only against the other two on finding that materials produced in the complaint are prima facie sufficient to constitute an office under Section 356 of BNS against them.

Meanwhile, the court said that the accused cannot be permitted to “approbate and reprobate simultaneously” while pointing out that on the one hand, they justify their statements by referring to t