'Kathmullapan' Remark | Lucknow Court Upholds Dismissal Of Defamation Complaint Against CM Yogi Adityanath

As per the complaint, CM had made the following remark in the Legislative Assembly:

“समाजवादियों का चरित्र दोहरा हो चुका है, ये अपने बच्चों को पढ़ाएंगे इंग्लिश स्कूल में और दूसरों के बच्चों के लिए कहेंगे उर्दू पढ़ाओ... उनको मौलवी बनाना चाहते हैं, 'कठमुल्लापन' की ओर देश को ले जाना चाहते हैं, ये नहीं चल सकता है…” [Translation : The character of the Samajadwadis has become two-faced, they will send their own children to English-medium schools but tell others to teach their children Urdu... they want to turn them into maulvis, want to lead the country towards 'Kathmullapan'; this cannot be allowed to happen…]

Rejecting the complaint last month, Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)/ACJM Alok Verma observed that since the statements in question were made in the Legislative Council by the UP CM, they were protected under Article 194 of the Constitution of India and are not liable to be questioned in court.

“Since, according to the applicant, the statements in question made by the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh were made in the Legislature/Legislative Assembly of the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Chief Minister is granted immunity for the aforesaid statements under Article 194 of the Constitution. Therefore, no proceedings with regard to the statements made by him in the Legislature shall be maintainable before this Court,” the order read.

More details of the order impugned here : Lucknow Court Dismisses Defamation Complaint Filed Against CM Yogi Adityanath Over 'Kathmullapan' Remark

Dealing with Thakur's Criminal Revision plea, District Judge Rani found no illegality in the Magistrate Court's order as she noted that it did not suffer from any manifest error or irregularity.

The Court specifically upheld the findings of the Magistrate Court that, as per Subsections (2) and (4) of Section 222, if a defamation offence is alleged against high officials, including a Minister, a complaint can only be filed with the government's prior sanction through a public prosecutor.

The Magistrate Court had further noted that Thakur doesn't qualify as an aggrieved person to be able to maintain a complaint against Adityanath.

"Apparently, the finding given by learned trial court on the allegation of defamation does not seem to be incorrect or illegal in a's much as Section 222(2) read with 222(4) BNSS provides that any offence of defamation alleged against any person, who at the time of such commission, is inter alia Minister of a State in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions can be taken cognizance of upon a complaint made by the public prosecutor and that too with the previous sanction of the State Government," District Judge Rani remarked as she dismissed Thakur's revision plea.