A special court in Bengaluru has rejected Karnataka Home Minister Priyank Kharge’s contention that a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) cannot maintain a criminal defamation complaint because the organisation is not registered and does not maintain formal membership records. The court termed the argument "wholly untenable and devoid of merit" while taking cognisance of a criminal defamation complaint filed by an RSS swayamsevak against Kharge and Congress leader Mohammed Haris Nalapad.
Special Judge Sandeep Patil, in an order dated June 27, took cognisance of the offence under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against Kharge and Nalapad and issued summons to them, returnable on July 21. The court, however, dropped proceedings against former Karnataka minister Dinesh Gundu Rao, holding that the material placed on record was insufficient to proceed against him.
The complaint was filed by Bengaluru-based RSS volunteer Tejas A, who alleged that statements made by Kharge, Nalapad and Gundu Rao in October 2025 were false, baseless and defamatory towards the RSS, its members and its activities.
Kharge had argued that the complainant failed to establish that he was an RSS member and therefore did not qualify as an "aggrieved person" under the law. He further contended that since the RSS is not a registered organisation and does not maintain formal membership records, no individual could claim locus standi to file a criminal defamation complaint on its behalf.
Rejecting the contention, the court observed that the accused could not simultaneously acknowledge the existence of RSS members while denying their legal standing.
The court said, "The accused cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate simultaneously. On one hand, they seek to justify their statements by referring to the RSS and its members, while on the other hand they deny the existence of such members solely to defeat the maintainability of the complaint."
The court further noted that the conduct attributed to the accused in allegedly targeting the activities of RSS volunteers itself demonstrated that there were identifiable individuals associated with the organisation.
The order stated, "Having targeted such individuals and their collective activities, the accused persons cannot now contend that no member exists and consequently no person can maintain a complaint."
Relying on Section 2(26) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which defines "person" to include "any company or association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not", the court held that the law does not require formal registration or documentary proof of membership for recognising a body of persons.
The court further observed, "The statute does not prescribe any requirement of formal membership, registration, incorporation, or documentary proof of affiliation as a condition precedent for recognizing a body of persons under the law. To import such requirements into the provision would amount to reading words into the statute which the legislature has consciously omitted."
The court also relied on judicial precedents, including a Kerala High Court judgment affirmed by the Supreme Court, to hold that the RSS is "a definite, determinate, and identifiable body or class of persons".
It added that "the concept of 'aggrieved person' in defamation jurisprudence does not require that the complainant must be individually named in the defamatory statement. It is sufficient if the imputation is made against a determinate class or identifiable group and the complainant shows prima facie that he is part of such group."
The court held that the complainant's assertion that he is an RSS swayamsevak was sufficient at the stage of taking cognisance and that issues relating to his membership, documentary proof, reputational harm and the accused's intention to defame are matters requiring evidence during trial.
The court also observed that "The defence that there was no intention to defame is itself a matter requiring evidence and adjudication during trial. The question whether the accused acted with the requisite intention, knowledge, malice, or good faith can only be conclusively determined after evidence is led by both sides."
The special court clarified that it was not required to conclusively determine disputed questions of fact at the stage of taking cognisance and that all such issues would be decided after evidence is led during the trial.