Back
Stays Defamation Proceedings Against Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge Pending Inquiry
The has granted to President Mallikarjun Kharge by staying proceedings currently pending before the . Justice Aman Chaudhary issued the following a filed under , effectively pausing the until the next hearing date, set for .
The Genesis of the Dispute
The legal entanglement began when a local resident, Hitesh Bhardwaj, initiated a complaint against the Congress leader. The complaint targeted remarks made by Mr. Kharge regarding the during the Karnataka Assembly election campaign, alleging that the language used in the party's manifesto and subsequent speeches was defamatory.
Procedural Arguments and Legal Challenges
Representing the petitioner, Senior Advocate argued that the court’s was fundamentally flawed. The primary contention was that the Magistrate failed to provide an opportunity for a hearing at the pre-summoning stage, a requirement stipulated under .
The defense further argued that the court acted in a mechanical manner, failing to account for the mandatory report required under (corresponding to ). Because the accused resides outside the of the Sangrur court, the defense maintained that a thorough inquiry was a mandatory legal prerequisite before any could be issued.
Precedents and Judicial Reasoning
The petitioner’s counsel drew heavily upon established to support the plea for . Specifically, the defense relied on the Supreme Court ruling in , emphasizing that orders issued without adherence to statutory procedural mandates are . Additionally, the defense invoked , highlighting the necessity for a magistrate to apply to the complaint and the accompanying reports before initiating criminal prosecution.
Key Observations
The High Court’s intervention centers on the potential lack of
in the lower court’s actions. Notable points raised by the petitioner include:
*
"The
has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing at pre-summoning stage and is thus non-compliant of Section 223(1) of BNSS."
* The complaint was characterized as a
"complete
,"
allegedly driven by political considerations rather than a genuine grievance.
* The defense asserted that the ACJM Sangrur had "mechanically summoned" the petitioner without proper application of mind.
Impact of the Order
By staying the proceedings, the has ensured that the status quo is maintained while it examines the validity of the court’s initial order. This decision underscores the judiciary's insistence on strict adherence to procedural safeguards, particularly when dealing with complaints involving high-profile political figures. The case will return to the spotlight in late 2026, when the Court is expected to deliberate further on the merits of the .
