A Delhi court sought the response of Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and the Delhi Police on a revision petition challenging the dismissal of a criminal complaint alleging hate speech in connection with a political rally held in Karnataka during the 2023 Assembly elections.
Special Judge Jitendra Singh of Rouse Avenue Court passed the order while hearing a revision petition filed by Advocate Ravindra Gupta, seeking to set aside a November 11, 2025 order of the Tis Hazari Court that declined to take cognisance of the complaint against the senior Congress leader.
The revisional court directed that the trial court record be summoned and listed the matter for further hearing on February 27.
The revision petition arises from allegations that Kharge, while addressing an election rally in Naregal, Karnataka, in April 2023, made remarks comparing Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the ideological framework of the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh to a poisonous entity. The complainant, who claims affiliation with the RSS, alleged that the statements amounted to hate speech and defamation, warranting prosecution under the Indian Penal Code.
The original complaint had been dismissed by Judicial Magistrate First Class Preeti Rajoria, who held that the impugned remarks were political in nature and directed at ideological positions rather than at any community identifiable by religion, caste, ethnicity, or other protected characteristics. The magistrate concluded that the essential ingredients of hate speech offences were not satisfied.
The Tis Hazari Court had further noted that no violence, public disorder, or incitement followed the speech. Applying settled principles governing restrictions on speech, the court held that political criticism—even if strident, offensive, or intemperate—does not amount to hate speech unless it bears a proximate nexus to incitement of hatred, discrimination, or violence between identifiable groups.
The magistrate had also declined to take cognisance of the offence of defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, observing that criminal defamation is ordinarily maintainable only at the instance of the person allegedly defamed. Since the complaint was not instituted by Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself, the court held that the bar under criminal law precluded cognisance.
In reaching its conclusions, the trial court relied on authoritative precedent, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India, which underscored the requirement of a clear and direct nexus between allegedly offensive speech and its tendency to incite violence or disturb public order. The court found no such causal link on the facts presented and dismissed the complaint.
The present revision also revisits earlier proceedings from December 2024, when the same court had declined to direct registration of an FIR in respect of the same speech. At that stage, the court had held that the complainant was at liberty to lead pre-summoning evidence and that police investigation was not warranted, as the material facts were within the complainant’s knowledge. It had further observed that if contested factual issues subsequently arose, recourse could be taken under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The complainant has maintained that the remarks made during the rally were defamatory and hurtful to members of the RSS, asserting that he felt personally aggrieved by the statements. It was also alleged that although Kharge later clarified that his remarks were directed at the BJP and the RSS as organisations, the speech nevertheless had the effect of maligning individuals associated with those bodies.
With the issuance of notice, the revisional court will now examine whether the magistrate’s refusal to take cognisance suffered from any legal infirmity, jurisdictional error, or perversity warranting interference under its revisional powers.
The post Delhi court issues notice to Mallikarjun Kharge in hate speech case appeared first on India Legal.