"Political battles must be fought outside the Court": SC Dismisses Shivananda Patil's Defamation Appeal

The Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran came down heavily on the attempt to litigate political rivalries through the judiciary.

“I always tell you all that political battles must be fought outside the court and not here,” CJI Gavai remarked at the outset of the hearing.

Patil had approached the Apex Court against the Karnataka High Court’s decision dated September 28, 2024, which quashed his defamation complaint on procedural grounds under the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The complaint stemmed from remarks allegedly made by Yatnal during the run-up to the 2023 Karnataka Assembly elections.

Senior counsel appearing for Patil contended that the accused had made serious defamatory remarks against a sitting Cabinet Minister.

The Bench, however, was unimpressed. “So what?” the CJI responded curtly before dismissing the matter with an initial cost of Rs. 25,000, which he momentarily escalated to Rs. 1 crore.

The cost was eventually waived after the petitioner’s counsel sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The Court allowed the withdrawal but reiterated its disapproval of using criminal litigation to settle political scores.

The case stems from a defamatory statements made by BJP MLA Basanagouda R. Patil Yatnal during a rally ahead of the 2023 Karnataka Assembly elections. As per reports,

the Gandhi Nagar police in Davanagere had registered an FIR based on a complaint filed by R. Manohar, General Secretary of the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC).

In his complaint, Manohar alleged that on September 29, 2024, the BJP MLA had addressed a press conference following a meeting with other leaders and claimed that a Congress leader had amassed Rs 1,000 crore to buy off MLAs and topple the state government. The complaint further stated that Yatnal’s remarks were inflammatory and had the potential to incite communal tensions between two religious communities.

The original defamation complaint had been filed under Section 223 of the BNSS, 2023, which criminalizes intentional defamation. Patil had alleged that Yatnal's public statements harmed his political reputation.

However, the Karnataka High Court found that the trial magistrate had failed to comply with mandatory procedural safeguards under BNSS, specifically, the requirement to record the complainant's and witnesses' statements under oath and issue notice to the accused before taking cognisance. Citing these lapses, the High Court had quashed the case entirely.

"The magistrate has to issue a notice to the accused, who is given an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, notice shall be issued to the accused and after hearing the accused, take cognizance and regulate its procedure thereafter,” had said Justice M Nagaprasanna while allowing the petition filed by Yatnal.

The High Court had observed that under Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), a magistrate taking cognisance of an offence on a complaint must examine the complainant and any witnesses present, under oath, and record their statements in writing.

It had further noted that the magistrate cannot take cognisance without first issuing notice to the accused and giving them an opportunity to be heard. Since the procedural stage under Section 227 of BNSS (akin to Section 204 of the CrPC, relating to issuance of process) had not yet arrived in the present case, the Court held that the requisite steps were not followed and quashed the case on that ground.

Case Title: Shivananda S. Patil v. Basanagouda R. Patil Yatnal

Hearing Date: August 4, 2025

Bench: CJI B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran