XLII Addl. CJM, Bengaluru: In a complaint filed by the complainant against the CM Siddaramaiah for making defamatory statements against the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (‘RSS’) and Bajrang Dal, a single judge bench of K.N. Shivakumar, Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, rejected the complaint, holding that the statement was protected by the immunity granted to legislators under Article 194(2) of the Constitution. The Court also observed that the complainant lacked locus standi to file the complaint as he failed to prove that he was a member of the RSS.
Background
The complainant, an advocate, used to attend the drill & exercise activities carried by RSS and is also an alumnus of Rastrothana Parishath an institute managed by RSS. He filed a complaint against the accused, Siddaramaiah, the Chief Minister of Karnataka, for offences punishable under Sections 299, 352, and 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’). The complaint alleged that on 17-03-2025, during a session of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, the Chief Minister made a derogatory statement against the RSS and Bajrang dal. While admiring the governance in curbing the crime rate in the state, CM Siddaramaiah has accused the RSS & Bajrang dal organizations as the perpetrators of crime in the state. The derogatory statement not only hurt his sentiments but also portrayed ‘divine RSS’ as crime organization and its volunteers as criminals.
Analysis and Decision
On Constitutional Privileges
The Court observed that the statement was made by the CM Siddaramaiah during the reply to the Motion of Thanks to the Governor’s address in the joint session of State Legislature in his capacity as the Chief Minister of the State, which included a discussion on law and order. The statement was a spontaneous and extemporaneous response to interruptions from opposition members. On careful consideration of the circumstance under which the statement got generated from the mouth of the accused, it is very clear that when one of the opposition member claims to belong to said RSS organization at the time of accused giving reply to the efforts that are being made by the Government for maintenance of law & order in the state and on the subject of the law enforcement & public order discussion, the CM Siddaramaiah replied to said member by saying that ‘you the RSS & Bajarang Dal are the ones who commit more offences’.
The Court concluded that the speech had a clear nexus with the governance issue being debated and was within the proceedings of the Legislature and intrinsic part of a legislative debate and as such covered within the ambit of the immunity or privilege under Article 194(2) of the Constitution.
On Locus Standi of the complainant
The Court noted that the complainant was a self-proclaimed member of the RSS and had not produced any documents to prove his membership. The Court noted that unless there is some proper proof or materials at least prima-facie to establish any such person to be member of said organization, it may not be proper to accept that he is a member of said organization merely based on his claim. The Court noted that in G. Narasimhan v. T.V. Chokkappa, (1972) 2 SCC 680, it was held that RSS organization is a determinate body of persons and a definite and identifiable body. Further as provided under explanation-2 to Section 356(2) of BNS, any imputation made against a company or an association or collection of persons would also amount to defamation and any member of such association or collection of persons can maintain complaint on behalf of such juristic entity. The complainant claims to a member of said RSS, but he has not stated his position & authority to file this complaint on behalf of said RSS organization.
On satisfying the ingredients of the Offences
The Court noted that on careful reading of Section 299 of BNS, it appears very clear that to attract said offence, there must a deliberate & malicious act on the part of the accused & such act should be with the intention of insulting the religion or the religious belief of any class of citizens of India. The Court found that the CM Siddaramaiah’s statement did not have the required deliberate & malicious act or the intention to insult any religion or religious belief. Further the RSS was not a religious organization. The Court observed that the statements in no manner satisfied the ingredients of an offence punishable under Section 299 of the BNS.
On offence under Section 352 BNS
The Court noted that offence under Section 352 or the BNS and Section 356 of the BNS cannot coexist. The Court further noted that,
“any such act, if it causes the effect of insulting may not have the effect of harm to reputation. Because, insult is self-generated, whereas harm to reputation would be in the eye of public/society. Further to attract the offence under Section of the 352 of the BNS, it necessary to show that such act of the accused was committed with the intention to insult the complainant & to give provocation to him with the intention or knowledge that such provocation would cause him to break public peace or to commit an offence. But, in case of defamation the only intention is to harm the reputation or damage the reputation or dignity of the complainant in the eyes of public or the society. Thus, to attract an offence under Section 352 of BNS, such act of the accused should be directed towards a particular person coupled with an intention to provoke such person to break public peace or to commit an offence.”
There was no such specific allegation as to any such intention of CM Siddaramaiah to insult any or provoke any individual and hence the ingredients of offence under Section 352 of the BNS, 2023 are not met.
On offence of defamation
The Court noted that the intention to cause harm is the most essential ‘sine qua non’ of an offence under Section 356 of the BNS. There were no specific averments in the complaint as to how the reputation of the complainant was damaged by alleged statement in the estimation of others, like his family members or relatives or friends or professional colleagues. Therefore, the Court concluded that no such intention to harm the reputation of the complainant could be gathered or judged from the alleged speech/ statement / imputations, rather an intention to brush aside the oppositions allegations about the maintenance of law & order in the Governance and also in the context of discussion on the subjects of law enforcement & public order as an intrinsic part of legislative debate in the proceedings of the legislature.
In light of the afore-stated discussion, the Court concluded that ingredients of alleged offences punishable under Sections 299, 352 & 356(2) of the BNS, 2023 were not met to take any cognizance against CM Siddaramaiah. The Court rejected the complaint.
[Kiran. N v. Siddaramaiah, PCR. No. 3876/2025, decided on 17-09-2025]
Buy Constitution of India HERE
