Karnataka Home Minister Priyank Kharge and Youth Congress leader Mohammed Haris Nalapad on Saturday denied the allegations of criminal defamation against them and sought trial in a case concerning remarks allegedly made against the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

The two appeared before the 42nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, and moved bail applications under Section 478 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). 

Their applications were allowed after the Court noted that the offence alleged under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) is bailable in nature. 

Both accused were released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of ₹1 lakh each along with cash security of ₹10,000 each.

The Court thereafter read over and explained the substance of the accusations to Kharge and Nalapad. Both denied the allegations and prayed for trial. The matter has now been posted for complainant evidence on September 19, 2026.

Case concerns alleged remarks against RSS

The criminal complaint was filed by Bengaluru resident and RSS worker A. Tejas. The proceedings relate to statements attributed to Kharge concerning the RSS, including a letter allegedly sent by him to the Karnataka Government on October 4, 2025, and subsequent social-media posts dated October 13 and 14.

According to the accusation recorded against Kharge, he had alleged that the RSS was using government and aided schools and public government grounds, raising slogans and allegedly influencing young people with thoughts against India's unity and the Constitution. The accusation also refers to an allegation that RSS members conducted aggressive demonstrations while carrying sticks. 

The Court's document further records an alleged October 13 social-media statement that people should “never befriend” RSS members and that they were the “real perpetrators of atrocities.” 

It also refers to an October 14 post in which Kharge allegedly stated: “When RSS did not spare Mahatma Gandhi or Babasaheb Ambedkar, why would it spare me?” 

The complainant alleges that these statements lowered the RSS's reputation in the eyes of the public and caused direct reputational harm to the complainant and thousands of RSS supporters. The allegations have consequently been brought under Section 356 BNS. 

Haris Nalapad accused over separate RSS remark

The accusation against Haris Nalapad, arraigned as Accused No. 3, concerns a separate statement allegedly made before the media while responding to statements attributed to Accused No. 1.

The Court order records the alleged remark as: “The RSS organisation has no strength anymore, in their shorts.”

The complainant alleges that the statement was derogatory, brought the RSS into disrepute and was subsequently published by news channels and on various social-media platforms. The allegation against Nalapad is also under Section 356 BNS. 

Both accused deny allegations, seek trial

The Court's proceedings on Saturday marked the stage at which the substance of the accusations was read over and explained to both accused. The Case status on the court's official website states: "The substance of the acquisition are read and explained to the accused Nos.1 and 3 and they denied the same and prayed for trial."

The Court then posted the matter for complainant evidence, with the next date fixed for September 19, 2026. 

Earlier cognizance and summons

The present proceedings follow an earlier order (https://lawbeat.in/news-updates/bengaluru-court-summons-karnataka-home-minister-priyank-kharge-in-rss-defamation-case-1607174 ) in which the Bengaluru court had taken cognizance of the complaint against Kharge and Nalapad under Section 356 BNS.

The Court had earlier found a prima facie case for criminal defamation and directed the two accused to appear. Proceedings against former Karnataka minister Dinesh Gundu Rao, who had been arrayed as another accused, were dropped.

The complainant had alleged that the statements attributed to the accused portrayed the RSS and its members negatively and were deliberately circulated through media and social-media platforms to reach a wider audience.

In the earlier proceedings, the Court had also dealt with the maintainability of the complaint, observing that references to “Swayamsevaks” or members in the alleged statements prima facie indicated an identifiable group whose existence could not be rejected at the threshold.

Case Title: Tejas A vs Priyank Kharge and Ors.

Tags: