A Bengaluru court recently dismissed a defamation complaint filed against Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah over his remarks that “most of those committing crimes are from RSS and Bajrang Dal.”.While rejecting the complaint, the Chief Judicial Magistrate KM Shivakumar observed that the speech had a direct nexus with the governance issues under discussion in the Assembly and was therefore covered by constitutional privilege."As such to test as to whether the alleged remarks would directly or indirectly harm the reputation of the complainant, it is necessary to show that the complainant has been identified with such organization or association in the society and he is identified as a man of said organization in the society or his friends or relatives as on or subsequent to publication of such remarks. If not, how could it be tested that alleged remarks would harm or caused any such harm to the reputation of complainant.".An advocate from Bengaluru, claiming to be a volunteer of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), filed a private complaint against Siddaramaiah alleging that his remarks in the State Legislative Assembly on March 17, 2025, were defamatory.The complainant stated that Siddaramaiah, while addressing the House during a debate on law and order, had remarked that “most of those committing crimes are from RSS and Bajrang Dal.” According to him, this statement, later carried by news outlets and circulated on social media, painted the RSS as a criminal organisation, hurting his sentiments and damaging his reputation as a member of the organisation..Before the court, Siddaramaiah’s counsel argued that since the statement was made on the floor of the Assembly, it was protected by Article 194(2) of the Constitution, which grants absolute immunity to legislators for anything said within the House. Counsel also questioned the complainant’s locus standi, pointing out that he had not proved membership of the RSS, nor was he an authorised representative of the organisation. Under the law, the counsel claimed that only an “aggrieved person” can initiate defamation proceedings..The judge noted that the complainant had failed to establish either his standing as a member of the RSS or the specific injury to his personal reputation."More over on careful reading of the allegations made in the complaint, it appears very clear that no where either in the complaint or in his statement under Sec.223 of BNSS, 2023, he states that alleged remarks made by the accused have lowered or harmed or damaged his reputation in the society or among his family or relatives & friends. Rather, he states that alleged statement is derogatory, libelous, maligning & assassinating the dignity of said RSS organization and is hurting his religious & emotional sentiments," the court noted.On these grounds, the court concluded that the complaint did not make out a prima facie case under the provisions of the BNS, 2023."The complaint filed by the complainant Under Sec.223 of BNSS, 2023 for the offences P/U/Sec.299, 352 & 356(2) of BNS, 2023, as against the accused is hereby rejected.".[Read Order]
