Telangana High Court Stays Defamation Case Against CM Revanth Reddy Over Alleged Comments On BJP

The Telangana High Court has stayed proceedings before the trial Court, initiated against the Chief Minister of the State A. Revanth Reddy, for statements given on 4th May in a Public Meeting called the "Jana Jatara Sabha".

Justice K. Lakshman passed the Order in a Criminal Petition, initiated by the Chief Minister, praying to quash the case against him, lodged under section 499 of the IPC and 125 of the Representation of People Act.

“There shall be stay of all further proceedings in C.C. No.312 of 2024 pending on the file of learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases at Hyderabad, till 23.06.2025,” the Bench ordered.

The case revolves around a speech given by the CM a few days prior to the 4^th Stage of elections scheduled in Telangana. As per the de-facto complainant, BJP represented by its State General Secretary, Kasam Venkateshwarulu, the meeting was attended by over 50 thousand people and was a conspiracy to cheat innocent voters, especially the Scheduled Tribes/Castes and Backward Classes.

It was allegedly implied that the CM, through his speech, lowered the credibility of the BJP by announcing that they would implement the Uniform Civil Code.

The counsel on behalf of the petitioner, on the other hand, contended that a speech given against one party by the opposition cannot be held to be defamation and should be considered an opinion. It was further argued that a Political Leader/ Party, when putting themselves in such a position, open themselves/ itseself to criticism.

Further, relying on Manoj Kumar Tiwari vs. Manish Sisodia, the counsel argued that what a party will do after coming into power is not a factual statement and cannot be considered as defamation because of its vague nature.

It was submitted that what a political party/leader may do once in power is not a factual statement with a determinable truth value, but is a narrative or opinion which would be outside the scope of defamation on account of being vague. In Para 66 of Manoj Kumar Tiwari v Manish Sisodia (2023) 15 SCС 401, the Supreme Court held that an allegedly defamatory statement cannot be vague or general but has to be specific, in order to have the potential to harm the reputation of the person concerned. This requirement of specificity is not met in the present case.

It was argued that section 125 of the RP Act could not be applied to a mere speech. It was argued that the key ingredient of section 125 is the promotion or enmity on grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language.

"Complaint does not establish any enmity or hatred caused or sought to be promoted by the accused on the specified grounds. Making statements that damage a political party's interests in coming back to power or cause voters to be suspicious of its intentions (even if unfairly) do not meet the requirement of the Section," the counsel argued.

Lastly, it was submitted that multiple complaints have been filed, and the present complaint should not have been admitted.

After hearing both sides, Justice Lakshman stayed the trial court proceedings till the next day of hearing.

Case Title: Revanth Reddy vs. State of Telangana

Counsel for petitioner: T. Bala Mohan Reddy

Counsel for State: Public prosecutor

Click Here To Read/Download Order