Mere Photograph In Advertisement Insufficient To Establish Rahul Gandhi's Nexus With Defamatory Publication: Karnataka High Court While Quashing BJP's Criminal Defamation Case
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav, on February 17, 2026, quashed criminal defamation proceedings against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, holding that the Bharatiya Janata Party, which filed the complaint, was not the aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 199(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court found that the advertisement at the center of the dispute made imputations against constitutional functionaries and government employees rather than the complainant party itself, and that Gandhi's presence in the matter rested solely on his photograph appearing in the advertisement, establishing no sufficient nexus to attribute the publication to him with the requisite intent to defame.
The Bharatiya Janata Party, represented by its Karnataka State Secretary, filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, alleging that the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee, its President, the then Leader of Opposition, and Rahul Gandhi, a former office-bearer of the Indian National Congress, had conspired to publish a defamatory advertisement in mainstream newspapers on May 5, 2023. The complaint alleged that the advertisement made reckless imputations covering the period 2019 to 2023, tarnishing the image of the complainant's government. It was further alleged that Gandhi had shared the advertisement on his social media account with additional remarks directed at the complainant.
The complainant produced documentary evidence including the advertisement and supporting materials and examined multiple witnesses before the trial court. The complaint was brought under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, with the proceedings initiated under Sections 190 and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Gandhi approached the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings, contending that the advertisement contained no imputation against the complainant, that there was no material linking him to the publication, that the tweet relied upon was neither exhibited nor supported by a Section 65B certificate under the Indian Evidence Act, that the complainant lacked locus standi as the aggrieved person, and that the mandatory inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had not been conducted prior to issuance of summons.
On the complainant's locus standi as aggrieved person, the court observed that the procedural requirement under Section 199(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that defamation proceedings be initiated by "some person aggrieved," and that absent such requirement, proceedings at the instance of any other person would render them void. Examining the authorisation, the court stated that "the letter of authorisation is issued by the President of the State Unit to its Secretary of the State Unit as made out by Ex.C.1. Such authorisation of the President of the State Unit cannot be accepted as legal authorisation to represent the BJP as a National Party."
It further recorded that "there is no material to indicate that the Bharatiya Janata Party had authorised the President of the Karnataka Unit to initiate proceedings. Accordingly, the complainant is not represented by a competent person and in the absence of which the aggrieved person being represented by an incompetent person, vitiates the proceedings."
On the nature of the advertisement and Gandhi's nexus to it, the court observed that "the procedural requirement of complaint being brought before the Magistrate by 'some person aggrieved' would require the entity defamed in the present case to bring the complaint. The complaint broadly appears to make out a case that it is the party that is the aggrieved person."
On Gandhi's role specifically, the court stated that "insofar as accused No.4 and his role in publication of the advertisement, a perusal of advertisement would indicate that except for the photograph of accused No.4 there is no other apparent nexus of accused No.4 with the advertisement. In an action which seeks to fasten criminal liability, it must be demonstrated that the imputation made must be at the instance of a person who has mens rea to defame. In the absence of any material to show that the advertisement was at the instance of accused No.4, the reliance on the advertisement by itself could not lead to the assertion that it was published by accused No.4 with the requisite intention to defame."
On Gandhi's photograph and his position in the party, the court further observed that "a mere photograph on the advertisement would not be sufficient to indicate that the advertisement was at the instance of accused No.4 when the legal provision stipulates that the person must have requisite mens rea. The position of the accused No.4 is different and in contradistinction to the other accused and their nexus to the advertisement by virtue of their position and the contextual background of the complaint."
On the unmarked tweet and absence of Section 65B certificate, the court noted that "the complainant's complaint also refers to tweet of accused No.4 wherein he is stated to have tweeted the advertisement along with certain additional remarks. It is stated that the said tweet in specific refers to BJP while forwarding the advertisement which would tie down accused No.4 as having defamed the complainant. However, strangely the text of the said tweet has not been marked along with other documents while sworn statement was recorded nor any Section 65B certificate produced in requisite format." It further stated that "sans the tweet, the advertisement by itself as noticed above cannot lead to any presumption of accused No.4 having defamed the complainant."
On the advertisement making imputations against functionaries and not the party, the court observed that "sans the tweet the advertisement by itself makes no reference to the party but rather makes an imputation to the functionaries mentioned in the advertisement. The reference that is made in the advertisement is to constitutional functionaries and Government employees being beneficiaries and to the irregularities in Government Schemes. None of the persons or entities referred to above are before this Court. Accordingly, the aggrieved person in the advertisement at Exhibit-C series factually cannot be the political party."
On the procedural lapse under Section 202 and issuance of summons, the court recorded that "considering that accused No.4 resides outside the territorial limits of the Court, non following of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. procedure has prejudiced the said accused and would also reveal a very casual approach of the complainant in not insisting for such enquiry before summons is issued to accused No.4. The Court while issuing summons ought to apply its mind so as to ensure that the consequence of issuing process to an accused and thereby making him a part of the prosecution of the complaint cannot be done casually. The Court when issuing process has to make up its mind that atleast a prima facie case is made out against the accused. In the present case material before the Magistrate in the form of Ex.C1 to C14 consists only of the advertisement and on the basis of such material as discussed above, no case is made out against accused No.4."
The Court directed that “the petition is allowed. The continuance of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the legal process and the proceedings… insofar as the petitioner - accused No.4 is concerned, is set aside.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Sri Shashikiran Shetty, Senior Advocate for Sri Nishit Kumar Shetty, Advocate along with Ms. Anishka Vaishnav, Advocate and Sri Harsha G.L., Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri Vinod Kumar M., Advocate
Case Title: Rahul Gandhi v. Bharatiya Janata Party
Neutral Citation: 2026: KHC:9535
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 14473 of 2024
Bench: Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav
