A special court of sessions in Bengaluru on Wednesday stayed further proceedings in a defamation case filed by a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) member before a special court of magistrate against Home Minister Priyank Kharge and Mohammed Haris Nalapad, son of Congress MLA N.A. Haris.
Shivaprasad K.B, judge of the special court of sessions for criminal cases against former and present MPs and MLAs in Karnataka, passed the order on separate petitions filed by Mr. Kharge and Mr. Nalapad challenging the June 27 order of taking cognisance of the offence of criminal defamation under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against them by the special court of magistrate.
Meanwhile, the sessions court issued notice to Tejas A., a Bengaluru-based RSS member who had lodged the complaint of defamation alleging Mr. Kharge, Mr. Nalapad and then Minister Dinesh Gundu Rao had allegedly made false, baseless and derogatory remarks against the RSS, its members and their activities through various media platforms in October, 2025. However, the magistrate court had dropped the proceedings against Mr. Rao.
Both of them had initially filed petitions, against the magistrate court’s order, before High Court of Karnataka, which on October 1 said that they have to approach the sessions court.
It was argued on behalf of Mr. Kharge and Mr. Nalapad before the sessions court that the complainant had given inconsistent versions about his connection with the RSS and had failed to produce any material to establish that he is a member of the RSS.
Citing certain judgments of the Supreme Court, it was argued that an “aggrieved person” for the purposes of a defamation complaint must be a definite, identifiable person who has sustained a specific legal injury, and that the category does not include any and every person. “In the absence of material showing that the complainant is an RSS member and thus an aggrieved person, the complaint itself is not maintainable,” it was argued on their behalf.
After hearing the arguments, the sessions court found it necessary to stay the proceedings before the magistrate court to examine the contentions of the petitioners that the complainant had no locus standi to file the defamation complaint. The magistrate court had proceeded against them by observing that the issue, whether the complainant has locus standi being a part of identifiable group like RSS to be treated as an “aggrieved person,” is a matter to be established by evidence during the trial.
Published – October 07, 2026 08:57 pm IST
