Back
Bengaluru Court Grants Bail to Priyank Kharge and Nalapad in RSS Defamation Case
The on Saturday granted conditional bail to Karnataka Home Minister Priyank Kharge and Youth Congress leader Mohammed Haris Nalapad in a case filed by an RSS worker. The court, after noting that the alleged offence under is , released both accused on a of ₹1 lakh each, along with a of ₹10,000 each. The matter has been posted for on .
The case stems from a private complaint lodged by A. Tejas, a resident of Siddapura, Bengaluru, who is a member of the . The complainant alleged that Kharge and Nalapad made defamatory statements targeting the organisation and its members through social media and public platforms in October 2025, thereby lowering the RSS’s reputation in the eyes of the public.
Background of the Complaint
According to the complaint, on , Priyank Kharge, in his capacity as Home Minister, wrote to the Karnataka government urging it to prevent the RSS from using government playgrounds, schools and colleges for its activities. The complainant alleged that this letter was deliberately released to the media and subsequently shared on Kharge’s social media accounts with an intention to defame the RSS.
Further, the complaint referred to social media posts allegedly made by Kharge on October 13 and 14, 2025. One of the posts purportedly stated: “Never befriend an RSS member. Not only friend, even if it is your family... They are the real abusers.” Another post allegedly claimed that “When RSS did not spare Mahatma Gandhi or Babasaheb Ambedkar, why would it spare me?”
Mohammed Nalapad, arraigned as Accused No. 3, was accused of making a derogatory remark about the RSS during an interview on a YouTube channel. According to the court order, the alleged statement was: “The RSS organisation has no strength anymore, in their shorts.” The complainant contended that this remark was widely circulated on news channels and social media platforms, bringing the RSS into disrepute.
The complainant argued that these statements were made with the specific intention of tarnishing the image and reputation of the RSS and its thousands of supporters. The digital links and other evidence submitted were examined by the court, which found a warranting further proceedings.
Court Proceedings and Bail Grant
On Saturday, both accused appeared before the , along with their respective counsels. The complainant’s counsel was also present. Counsels for Kharge and Nalapad filed bail applications under and applications under seeking acceptance of .
The court noted that the offence alleged under Section 356 of the BNS is . Accordingly, the bail applications were allowed. The accused were directed to execute a of ₹1 lakh each and provide of ₹10,000 each.
Thereafter, the substance of the accusations was read over and explained to both Kharge and Nalapad. Both denied the allegations and prayed for trial. The court then posted the matter for , with the next date fixed for .
Earlier, on June 29, the same court had taken cognisance of the complaint under and issued summons to the two leaders. Proceedings against former Karnataka minister Dinesh Gundu Rao, who had initially been arrayed as an accused, were dropped.
Legal Analysis: Bailable Nature of the Offence
Section 356 of the , which deals with , is a bailable offence. This means that the accused are entitled to be released on bail as a matter of right, and the court has little discretion to deny bail. The court’s order reinforces this legal position, holding that since the offence is bailable, the bail applications must be allowed.
The case highlights the interplay between freedom of speech and the right to reputation. In recent years, provisions have been invoked frequently in political contexts, often to silence dissent or criticism. However, the bailable nature of the offence ensures that accused persons are not subjected to prolonged pre-trial detention, even if the allegations are serious.
The court had earlier dealt with the , observing that references to “Swayamsevaks” or members in the alleged statements prima facie indicated an whose existence could not be rejected at the threshold. This reasoning is consistent with settled law that a group may be defamed if it is identifiable as a distinct entity.
Implications for Political Speech and Defamation Law
This case is significant for legal practitioners working on defamation matters, particularly those involving public figures and political speech. The court’s decision to proceed with the trial indicates that even public officials can be held accountable for statements made in their personal capacity if those statements are alleged to be defamatory.
At the same time, the granting of bail reflects the judiciary’s commitment to protecting the personal liberty of accused persons, especially when the alleged offence is bailable. The requirement of a and is standard for bailable offences and is not intended to be punitive.
The case also raises questions about the scope of when applied to comments made on social media. The digital nature of the alleged defamatory statements – tweets and YouTube interviews – modernises the traditional understanding of defamation and poses unique evidentiary challenges. The court will need to examine the authenticity and context of these posts during the trial.
Next Steps: Trial and Evidence
With the bail granted, the matter now moves to the stage of . On , the complainant A. Tejas will present his evidence before the court. Both Kharge and Nalapad have denied the allegations and sought trial, meaning they will have the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and present their defence.
The trial is expected to be closely watched, given the political stature of the accused and the sensitivity of the issues involved. The RSS has a vast network of supporters, and the outcome could have broader implications for the regulation of political speech in India.
Conclusion
The Bengaluru court’s decision to grant bail to Priyank Kharge and Mohammed Nalapad follows the legal mandate for bailable offences, while also allowing the defamation case to proceed to trial. The case underscores the ongoing tension between the right to free expression and the protection of reputation, a balance that Indian courts have long grappled with. As the trial unfolds, legal professionals will be closely watching how the court applies the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita to modern forms of communication, and whether the defences raised by the accused—that their statements were or justified—will find favour with the bench.
