Read Time: 04 minutes
The complaint was filed by former IPS officer and Azad Adhikar Sena National President Amitabh Thakur, who alleged that the Chief Minister’s comments could incite hatred among various communities
A special MP/MLA court in Lucknow has dismissed the complaint filed against Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath over his controversial 'Kathmullapan' remark made in the state’s Legislative Council earlier this year.
Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)/ACJM Alok Verma held that the Chief Minister’s remarks—made while addressing the legislature—were protected by Article 194 of the Constitution, which grants immunity to legislators for statements made in the course of their official duties within the House.
Since, according to the applicant, the statements in question were made in the Legislature… the Chief Minister is granted immunity under Article 194 of the Constitution. Therefore, no proceedings with regard to the statements made by him in the Legislature shall be maintainable before this court, the judge observed.
The complaint was filed by former IPS officer and Azad Adhikar Sena National President Amitabh Thakur, who alleged that the Chief Minister’s comments could incite hatred among various communities on the basis of religion, caste, and language, and would adversely affected social harmony.
CM Adityanath’s remarks—shared later via his official X (formerly Twitter) handle—accused the Samajwadi Party of duplicity, saying they educated their children in English-medium schools while pushing others towards Urdu education and “Kathmullapan”, a term he used to criticize what he called a regressive ideological direction.
Thakur claimed the statement was defamatory and hurt the religious sentiments of the Muslim community.
However, the court emphasized that under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Defamation), read with Section 222 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, only an “aggrieved person” can file a complaint in such matters. The judge held that Thakur, not being personally defamed by the remarks, could not be considered an aggrieved party under the law.
Moreover, court noted that when defamation allegations are made against high-ranking public officials, including ministers, prior government sanction through a public prosecutor is mandatory—a condition Thakur had failed to meet.
On these grounds, the court concluded on April 21, 2025, that the complaint was legally untenable and dismissed it.
Case Title: Amitabh Thakur vs Yodi Adityanath (Criminal Misc. Cases/1963/2025)
Please Login or Register
