Karnataka High Court has set aside a criminal defamation case filed against Rahul Gandhi, delivering relief to the senior Congress leader in a dispute that stemmed from allegations about corruption under a government led by the Bharatiya Janata Party in the state.Justice M. Nagaprasanna ruled that the complaint did not meet the threshold required to sustain criminal proceedings, observing that the remarks attributed to Gandhi were made in a political context and did not constitute specific imputations against identifiable individuals. The case had been initiated by the Bharatiya Janata Party after Gandhi alleged during a public address that a BJP-led administration in Karnataka had demanded commissions from contractors, claims that became a central plank of the Congress campaign in the 2023 Assembly election.
The High Court order brings to a close proceedings that had been pending for more than a year, during which Gandhi had sought quashing of the complaint on the grounds that it amounted to an attempt to criminalise political speech. His legal team argued that the allegations referred broadly to a government and its functioning rather than to any named office-bearer, and therefore could not attract criminal defamation provisions under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
The BJP’s complaint traced its origins to statements made in 2022 and early 2023, when contractors’ associations had publicly alleged that they were being asked to pay a 40 per cent commission for public works contracts. The Congress amplified those claims, accusing the then state administration of institutionalising graft. Gandhi, who was leading the party’s campaign in Karnataka at the time, repeated the charge in speeches and social media posts, branding the government as corrupt.
In dismissing the case, the court noted that criminal defamation requires a clear and direct imputation against a person or a determinate body of persons. The order underscored that general allegations levelled in the course of political discourse, particularly during an election campaign, must be assessed against the constitutional guarantee of free speech. The bench found no material to show that Gandhi had targeted any specific BJP office-bearer with the intent to harm personal reputation.
The ruling is significant against the backdrop of a broader debate over the use of criminal defamation and other penal provisions in political contests. Legal scholars have long argued that criminal law should not be invoked to settle political scores, especially when civil remedies remain available. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of criminal defamation in 2016, but emphasised that courts must apply the law carefully to prevent abuse.
Gandhi, who represents Wayanad in the Lok Sabha and serves as a leading figure in the Congress, has faced multiple defamation proceedings in different states over remarks made during election campaigns. In 2023, a trial court in Surat convicted him in a separate criminal defamation case relating to comments on the Modi surname, a verdict that led to his brief disqualification from Parliament before being stayed by the Supreme Court. The Karnataka High Court decision adds to a patchwork of rulings that have tested the boundaries of political speech.
For the BJP in Karnataka, the complaint formed part of its effort to counter what it described as unsubstantiated and defamatory accusations. Party leaders had maintained that the so-called 40 per cent commission allegation was a political slogan designed to tarnish its image ahead of the Assembly polls. The Congress went on to win the 2023 election decisively, unseating the BJP from power in the state.
The High Court’s reasoning may have implications beyond this case. By stressing the need for specificity in criminal defamation complaints, the order signals judicial caution against permitting broad political rhetoric to be converted into criminal liability. Legal practitioners note that while political speech is not immune from scrutiny, the bar for prosecution is high when statements concern governance and public administration rather than personal conduct of named individuals.
Political reactions were swift. Congress leaders described the order as vindication of their anti-corruption campaign in Karnataka, arguing that the judiciary had recognised the legitimacy of raising issues of public interest. BJP representatives, while expressing respect for the court’s decision, reiterated their position that allegations against the party were unfounded and politically motivated.