Telangana High Court Quashes State BJP's Defamation Case Against CM Revanth Reddy, Says National Party's State Unit Has No Independent Existence
The Telangana High Court has set aside a Criminal case that was filed against C.M. Revanth Reddy, based on a complaint filed by Bhartiya Janta Party (Telangana) General Secretary, Karam Venkateshwarlau, alleging that Reddy had given a speech which defamed the BJP. Justice K. Lakshman, while allowing the petition noted that the defaming remarks (if any) were made against the National BJP...
The Telangana High Court has set aside a Criminal case that was filed against C.M. Revanth Reddy, based on a complaint filed by Bhartiya Janta Party (Telangana) General Secretary, Karam Venkateshwarlau, alleging that Reddy had given a speech which defamed the BJP.
Justice K. Lakshman, while allowing the petition noted that the defaming remarks (if any) were made against the National BJP Party, and BJP (Telangana) could not be considered a 'person aggrieved' under section 199(1) of the CrPC.
"The state units of a national political party have no independent/separate existence. In the absence of any recognition, the Telangana unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party, i.e., the Complainant - Bharatiya Janata Party (Telangana) cannot claim to, be a separate identifiable group independent of the Bharatiya Janata Party, the national party," the bench held.
The Bench further noted that Venkateshwarlau had filed the complaint in his individual capacity, and nowhere in the complaint was it mentioned that he should be considered as an aggrieved person due to being a member of the BJP.
"The Complainant asserted that it is a separate identifiable group and was aggrieved by the alleged speech. Therefore, this Court holds that, the Complainant, in its individual capacity as a separate state unit, was not directly aggrieved and it is not a separate legal entity. Mr. Kasam Venkateshwarlu could have maintained a complaint only as a member of the allegedly defamed association or collection of people, i.e., the Bharatiya Janata Party."
Even otherwise, the bench noted that the complaint could not be accepted because it was filed without authorisation.
Justice Lakshman noted that though political parties are recognised as individuals under the Constitution; any complaint/case instituted by the Party, should be made, only by an authorised individual.
"This Court finds it difficult to consider him an authorised representative of the Bharatiya Janata Party and he had been authorized to file the present complaint against the petitioner for defamation."
The criminal complaint/case was initiated after a speech given by A. Revanth Reddy during the 2024 National Elections.
Revanth in his speech is alleged to have indicated that the BJP was going to change the Constitution and do away with reservation.
Aggrieved by this, the General Secretary of the BJP (Telangana) filed a criminal complaint following which the trial court ordered notice to Reddy and ordered for institution of the criminal case under Sections 120A, 124A, 153, 153A, 153B, 171C, 171G, 499, 505, and 511 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 125 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.
Challenging the order and the complaint, the present plea was preferred.
Senior counsel appearing for Reddy argued that the allegations were vague, that a political speech could not be considered to defame another party, because it is given with the intention of diluting the credibility of the other party. He also pressed that there was no official Authorization given to the complainant, and on that ground alone, the complaint deserves to be quashed.
Counsel for BJP (Telangana) on the other hand, argued that a political party is recognised as an individual under the law and the complainant being the General Secretary of the party did not need authorisation. It was further contended that Reddy's speech was 'strategic, well-planned and defamatory per se'.
Agreeing with Reddy's arguments, Justice Lakshman noted that Political speeches are usually made with the intention of bringing down the opponent, and thus, the threshold for considering defamation should be higher.
"...where political speeches are involved, the threshold to allege defamation and maintain a complaint under Section 199 of the CrPC shall be much higher. Political speeches are often exaggerated. To allege that such speeches are defamatory is another exaggeration."
The bench further reiterated that 'authorization' is the sine qua non for filing a complaint under section 199 of CrPC on behalf of a company/association.
Relying on Tamilisai Soundaryarajan v. Dhardhi K. Karthikeyan the bench held, "Even if this Court were to accept that the Complainant is a part of the national unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party and maybe treated as a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party, the complaint is not maintainable for the lack of authorisation. Neither the Complainant nor its representative, Mr. Kasam Venkateshwarlu, were authorised by the national unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party to file the complaint. As discussed supra, in the context of companies and associations like political parties, authorisation is a sine qua non to maintain a criminal complaint under Section 199 of the CrPC."
Case title: A. Revanth Reddy vs. State of Telangana Counsel for petitioner: Senior Counsel T. Niranjan Reddy appearing on behalf of T. Bala Mohan Reddy assisted by Vinayaka Krishna and Vishal Gandhi.
Counsel for State: PP
Counsel for R2: Devineni Vijay Kumar