Hate Speech against BJP & RSS During Election Rally: Delhi Court Dismisses Case Against Mallikarjun Kharge

The Court concluded that the allegations did not satisfy the legal ingredients for invoking offences under Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, 499, 500, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and that the statement fell within the realm of political criticism protected under the Constitution.

The matter was listed for orders on summoning before Judicial Magistrate Preeti Rajoria of Tis Hazari Court who had previously heard arguments from the complainant’s side.

The complainant, a practising Advocate and long-time RSS member, Ravinder Gupta alleged that he was personally aggrieved by a remark made by the accused on April 27, 2023 during a political event in Naregal, Gadag, Karnataka. The accused had stated that “Mr. Modi is like a poisonous snake. If you try to test whether it is poisonous or not, you will die.”

The complainant claimed that the remark was inflammatory, defamatory, and insulting to the BJP and RSS, and that as an RSS swayamsewak of five decades, he too felt defamed. He further submitted that the accused later clarified his statement to mean that he was referring not to Modi personally, but to the BJP and RSS. This clarification, the complainant argued, deepened his grievance because it targeted the organisation with which he was associated.

The complainant issued a legal notice on May 3, 2023 seeking a public apology, but received no response. He later approached the police, filing complaints with the Subzi Mandi police station and senior Delhi Police officials, but no FIR was registered. He then filed a private complaint seeking directions for lodging an FIR for offences relating to defamation, promoting enmity and outraging religious feelings.

The Court had earlier dismissed his application under Section 156(3) CrPC and proceeded with pre-summoning evidence, during which the complainant examined himself and relied on nine documents.

In its detailed order, the Court first addressed the allegation of defamation. Citing Section 499 IPC, it noted that defamation requires an imputation concerning a specific person, made with intent or knowledge that it will harm that person’s reputation.

The Court held that the complainant’s claim did not satisfy these requirements. It emphasised that cognizance of defamation under Section 500 IPC cannot be taken unless the complaint is filed by the aggrieved person; in this case, the Prime Minister, under Section 199(1) of the CrPC. A member or supporter of an organisation cannot claim personal defamation solely because a political remark targets the organisation.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shatrughna Prasad Sinha v. Rajbhau Surajmal Rathi (1996), the court held that the complainant had not shown any direct harm to his reputation in the eyes of others. The complaint, it observed, only contained a broad assertion that the remark hurt him as an RSS swayamsewak, which does not constitute the offence of defamation.

Turning to the allegations of hate speech, the court found no basis to invoke Sections 153A, 153B or 295A IPC, which criminalise promoting enmity between groups, making statements prejudicial to national integration, and insulting religious beliefs. The judge noted that the accused’s statement was directed at political ideologies, not at any community defined by religion, caste or ethnicity. “It appears as a political criticism,” the Court said, adding that harsh or offensive criticism cannot be penalised unless it incites hatred or violence.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014), which requires a direct nexus between speech and public disorder for it to be criminalised as hate speech.

Finding no prima facie case under any alleged provision, the Court dismissed the complaint under Section 203 CrPC and ordered the file consigned to the record room.