SOURCE :- SIASAT NEWS
Bengaluru: On Thursday, October 1, the Karnataka High Court heard petitions from Home Minister Priyank Kharge and Congress leader Mohammed Haris Nalapad challenging criminal defamation proceedings stemming from alleged derogatory remarks and social media posts about the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh ( RSS).
Kharge and Nalapad were instructed by the bench’s chair to submit a correction complaint to the Meetings Court challenging the lower court’s initial proceedings. The petitioners have the option of pursuing their lawful issue through the update process thanks to the High Court’s order.
The incident was brought on by RSS employer A. Tejas in October 2025. The complainant claimed that Kharge had made remarks and shared disparaging posts on social media about the RSS and its users. He claimed that Nalapad had made disagreeable remarks about RSS people while speaking in front of a crowd.
In accordance with the pertinent provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, proceedings were started against Kharge and Nalapad in response to the problem. Following that, a jury in Bengaluru issued summonses to the two accused after taking cognizance of the reported crime.
Dinesh Gundu Rao, the Congress president, was also named in the problem. But, the lower court did not take him into account in the case.
Kharge and Nalapad filed a lawsuit against the High Court, requesting that the event be overturned. They petitioned the court for permission to hear their requests for relief from the judge. They also questioned the progression of the legal proceedings arising from the complaint.
However, the High Court directed the two leaders to bring the correction solution before the Sessions Court while disposing of the petitions.
Tejas ‘ accusations against the two leaders have not been fully resolved. Harge and Nalapad have refuted the claims and have the right to challenge the trials in court.
The petitioners you then file for a petition with the Sessions Court to challenge the lower judge’s cognisance order and find ideal relief.
The most recent High Court growth does not indicate that the reported claims were disparaging. During the ongoing legal process, the merits of the problem and the accused’s defense will be taken into account.
SOURCE : SIASAT
