Karnataka High Court Quashes Defamation Proceedings Against Rahul Gandhi in BJP Advertisement Case

The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal defamation proceedings initiated against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in connection with a 2023 newspaper advertisement allegedly targeting the Bharatiya Janata Party.

The bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav on February 17, 2026 allowed a petition filed by Gandhi under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) seeking quashing of proceedings in a 2024 case pending before the XLII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.

The case arose from a private complaint filed by the Bharatiya Janata Party, represented by its Karnataka State Secretary, S. Keshava Prasad. The complaint alleged that an advertisement published on May 5, 2023, carried defamatory imputations against the BJP and its government for the period 2019 to 2023.

It was further alleged that the advertisement was issued pursuant to a conspiracy involving the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee and certain party leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, who was arrayed as accused No.4.

According to the complainant, Rahul Gandhi had actively campaigned for the Congress party and had shared the impugned advertisement on his Twitter account, thereby reinforcing the alleged defamatory intent. The magistrate had taken cognizance of offences under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC [corresponding to Sections 356 (1) and (2) of the BNS] and issued summons after recording sworn statements.

Before the high court, Rahul Gandhi contended that the advertisement did not contain any specific imputation against the complainant as a legally identifiable entity. He further argued that there was no material on the record to establish that he had authorised or directed the publication of the advertisement.

The alleged tweet, he pointed out, had neither been marked as an exhibit nor supported by a mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act (Section 63 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam).

The high court examined the maintainability of the complaint under Section 199 CrPC (corresponding to Section 222 of the BNSS), which mandates that a defamation complaint must be instituted by a “person aggrieved.” Court noted that while the complaint described the BJP as a national party, the authorisation to initiate proceedings had been issued by the President of the Karnataka State Unit in favour of the State Secretary.

There was no material to show that the national party had authorised such action. Court held that in the absence of proper authorisation, the complainant was not competently represented, thereby vitiating the proceedings.

On merits, court found that apart from the presence of Rahul Gandhi’s photograph in the advertisement, there was no material to connect him to its publication.

Criminal defamation requires intention or knowledge to harm reputation, and no such material was placed before the magistrate at the stage of issuing process, court noted. Significantly, the alleged tweet relied upon by the complainant was not exhibited at the time of cognizance.

The high court held that the magistrate could only consider the material on record at that stage, which consisted solely of the advertisement. n the absence of the tweet on record, there was no basis to presume involvement of Gandhi.

Court also flagged procedural lapses under Section 202 CrPC (Section 225 of BNSS). Since Rahul Gandhi resided outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, an inquiry under Section 202 was mandatory before issuing summons. Non-compliance, court held, caused prejudice and reflected a casual approach.

Holding that continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process, the high court quashed the complaint insofar as Rahul Gandhi was concerned.

Rahul Gandhi was represented by Senior Advocate Shashi Kiran Shetty, appearing for Advocate Nishit Kumar Shetty, along with Advocates Anishka Vaishnav and Harsha G.L., while the respondent–complainant, Bharatiya Janata Party, represented by its State Secretary S. Keshava Prasad, was represented by Advocate Vinod Kumar M.

Case Title: Rahul Gandhi vs. Bhartiya Janta Party

Order Date: February 17, 2026

Bench: Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav