A Bengaluru sessions court has upheld the dismissal of a criminal defamation complaint against Congress leader and former Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah over remarks concerning the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Bajrang Dal made by him in the State Legislative Assembly.
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Shivaprasad KB, in a judgment delivered on August 29, rejected a criminal revision petition filed by Kiran N, who had challenged the earlier order refusing to entertain his private complaint against Siddaramaiah.
The controversy arose from remarks made by Siddaramaiah in the Assembly on March 17, 2025, during a debate concerning law and order in Karnataka. The complainant alleged that Siddaramaiah had stated that “most of those committing crimes are from RSS and Bajrang Dal.”
Kiran, who claimed to be an RSS volunteer, contended that the statement was defamatory and had caused injury to his sentiments as a member of the organisation. He further argued that the remarks had no connection with the legislative business being transacted in the House.
The complaint invoked provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Section 299 concerning deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings, Section 352 relating to intentional insult intended to provoke a breach of peace and Section 356(2) dealing with criminal defamation.
The complaint was earlier rejected by the XLII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in September 2025. The Magistrate had found that Siddaramaiah’s remarks were made in the course of a legislative discussion on governance and law-and-order matters and consequently enjoyed constitutional protection.
The revision court has now endorsed that reasoning.
Judge Shivaprasad KB held that the material before the court demonstrated a direct connection between Siddaramaiah’s statement and the law-and-order issue being debated on the floor of the House. The court consequently concluded that the remarks fell within the protection available to legislators under Article 194(2) of the Constitution.
The provision protects members of a State Legislature from court proceedings in respect of anything said or any vote given by them in the Legislature or its committees.
The court observed that Siddaramaiah’s statement was connected with a matter of governance being discussed during the legislative proceedings and, therefore, criminal prosecution could not be sustained on the basis of the impugned remarks.
The court also rejected a separate plank of the complainant’s case concerning his standing to initiate the defamation proceedings.
Under Section 222(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), cognisance of an offence of criminal defamation is ordinarily taken only upon a complaint made by a person who is “aggrieved” by the alleged offence.
Kiran had asserted that he was an active member of the RSS, had attended its shakhas and had been associated with the organisation since his school years. On that basis, he claimed that the alleged remarks directly affected him.
The sessions court, however, found that the complainant had not placed sufficient material before it to substantiate his claimed membership of the RSS. It consequently declined to accept his contention that he qualified as an aggrieved person for maintaining the criminal defamation proceedings.
With these findings, the court dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the earlier order rejecting the complaint against Siddaramaiah.
The ruling effectively brings the criminal proceedings arising from the Assembly remarks to an end, with the court holding that the impugned statement bore a sufficient nexus with legislative deliberations on law and order and was consequently protected by constitutional privilege.
Senior Counsel Vikram Huilgol and Advocate Shathabhish Shivanna appeared for Siddaramaiah.
The post Bengaluru Court upholds dismissal of defamation case against Siddaramaiah over RSS, Bajrang Dal remarks appeared first on India Legal.