Delhi Court Dismisses Complaint Against Mallikarjun Kharge Over “Poisonous Snake” Remark; Says No Defamation or Hate Speech Made Out
Sangeetha Prathap
The Tis Hazari Court has dismissed a complaint seeking criminal action against Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge for his 2023 remark comparing Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the ideologies of the BJP and RSS to a “poisonous snake.” The Court held that no ingredients of defamation or hate speech were made out under Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, 499, 500, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and found the impugned statement to be political criticism protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The order was passed by Judicial Magistrate Preeti Rajoria.
The complaint was filed by Ravinder Gupta, a practising advocate and long-time RSS member, who claimed he was personally aggrieved by the accused’s remark made on April 27, 2023 during a political rally at Naregal, Gadag, Karnataka. The statement attributed to the accused read: “Mr. Modi is like a poisonous snake. If you try to test whether it is poisonous or not, you will die.” According to the complainant, Kharge later clarified that his comparison was directed not at the Prime Minister personally but at the ideologies of the BJP and RSS, which the complainant argued intensified his grievance as an RSS swayamsevak for over five decades.
After issuing a legal notice on May 3, 2023 seeking a public apology and receiving no reply, the complainant approached the Subzi Mandi police station and senior Delhi Police officials, but no FIR was registered. He eventually filed a private complaint seeking directions to lodge an FIR for defamation and hate speech offences. His application under Section 156(3) CrPC was dismissed on December 9, 2024, following which the matter proceeded to pre-summoning evidence. He examined himself as CW-1 and relied on nine documents.
In assessing the allegation of defamation, the Court considered the requirements under Section 499 IPC. The Magistrate observed that defamation requires an imputation concerning a specific person made with the intent or knowledge that it will harm that person’s reputation. The Court noted that cognizance of defamation under Section 500 IPC is barred unless the complaint is filed by the aggrieved person himself under Section 199(1) CrPC. Since the Prime Minister had not filed the complaint, the Court held that the complainant could not claim personal defamation merely because he is associated with the RSS. The order stated that the complaint contained only a broad assertion that the remark hurt him as an RSS member, and that “no specific allegation is forthcoming… indicating that the imputations made have caused damage to the reputation of the complainant in the eyes of others.” The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Shatrughna Prasad Sinha v. Rajbhau Surajmal Rathi to hold that individual harm to reputation had not been established.
Turning to the allegations of hate speech, the Court examined whether the statement attracted Sections 153A, 153B or 295A IPC. It held that the accused’s clarification indicated that he was referring to the ideologies of BJP and RSS, and not to any religious or caste-based community. The Court found that the remark constituted “political criticism” and not speech directed against any group defined by religion, caste or ethnicity. It further held that the statement did not promote enmity, insult religious beliefs, inflame public disorder or threaten national integration. The Magistrate reiterated that harsh or offensive criticism does not amount to hate speech unless it tends to incite hatred or violence between groups, and cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India, which requires a direct nexus between speech and public disorder for liability under hate speech provisions.
Finding no prima facie case under any of the alleged offences, the Court dismissed the complaint under Section 203 CrPC and ordered the file consigned to the record room. The Court concluded that neither defamation nor hate speech charges were made out and that the statements in question fell squarely within the ambit of constitutionally protected political expression.
Cause Title: Ravinder Gupta Vs. State Government Of Nct Of Delhi
Case No: CC No.146-2024
Coram: Preeti Rajoria (Judicial Magistrate)
