Dismissal of Defamation Complaint Against Siddaramaiah
In a significant legal development, a Bengaluru court has upheld the dismissal of a defamation complaint filed against Siddaramaiah, a prominent Congress leader and former Chief Minister of Karnataka. The complaint was based on remarks made by Siddaramaiah in the Legislative Assembly concerning the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Bajrang Dal. The decision was delivered by Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Shivaprasad KB on August 29.
Background of the Case
The case was initiated by Kiran N, a Bengaluru-based advocate and self-proclaimed volunteer of the RSS, who filed a private complaint against Siddaramaiah. He alleged that Siddaramaiah’s comments during a legislative debate on March 17, 2025, were defamatory and hurt his sentiments as an RSS member. Specifically, Siddaramaiah had remarked that “most of those committing crimes are from RSS and Bajrang Dal.”
Legal Proceedings
Kiran N pursued legal action against Siddaramaiah, citing violations under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, including Section 299 (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings), Section 352 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), and Section 356(2) (defamation). However, on September 17, 2025, the XLII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, dismissed the complaint, stating that the speech was related to governance issues discussed in the Assembly and therefore protected by constitutional privilege.
Revision Petition and Ruling
Not satisfied with the dismissal, Kiran N filed a criminal revision petition challenging the magistrate’s order. In the recent ruling, Judge Shivaprasad KB reaffirmed the previous decision, emphasizing that Siddaramaiah’s statements were related to the law-and-order issues being debated in the Assembly. The court cited Article 194(2) of the Constitution, which grants immunity to legislators for speeches made in the House, thus shielding Siddaramaiah from criminal prosecution for the remarks.
Complainant’s Aggrieved Status
The court also addressed Kiran’s assertion that he was an “aggrieved person” eligible to file a criminal defamation complaint under Section 222(1) of the BNSS. Despite Kiran’s claims of active participation in RSS activities since his school days, the court found insufficient evidence to substantiate his membership in the organization. Consequently, the court dismissed Kiran’s revision petition and upheld the original order dismissing the defamation complaint.
Legal Representation
Siddaramaiah was represented by Senior Counsel Vikram Huilgol and Advocate Shathabhish Shivanna during the proceedings.
