The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rejected a petition filed by actress Kangana Ranaut seeking quashing of a criminal defamation complaint and the summoning order issued by a Bathinda magistrate. The order was pronounced on August 1, 2025, by Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya.
The defamation complaint was filed by Mahinder Kaur, a senior citizen and participant in the farmers’ protest, who alleged that Kangana made a retweet on social media (Twitter/X) falsely identifying her as a woman who was available for 100 rupees. The tweet also referenced a Time magazine cover and claimed that Pakistani journalists had hijacked India’s international PR.
Read Also:-Embezzlement in Banks Warrants Dismissal: Punjab & Haryana HC Upholds Termination
Ha ha ha she is the same dadi who featured in Time magazine for being the most powerful Indian…. And she is available in 100 rupees. Pakistani jurno’s have hijacked international PR for India in an embarrassing way. We need our own people to speak for us internationally, Kangana’s retweet said.
Kaur claimed she had no association with the woman from Shaheen Bagh, who was featured in Time magazine, and that the tweet lowered her dignity and reputation in society and among fellow protestors. Supporting her claim, the complainant presented her Aadhaar card and testimony from a co-protestor, Gurpreet Singh, who confirmed seeing the tweet and shared it with her.
Following the evidence, the magistrate summoned Kangana under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC (criminal defamation). The petitioner moved the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, contending that the complaint lacked merit and the tweet was made in good faith without intent to defame.
Read Also:-Punjab & Haryana HC Modifies Compensation Deadline Due to Unintentional Delay
Her counsel argued that:
- The magistrate did not wait for a report from Twitter Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (TCIPL), violating Section 202 CrPC.
- The retweet lacked mens rea (intent to harm) and fell under the Ninth and Tenth Exceptions of Section 499 IPC.
- The tweet was not originally posted by Kangana but was a retweet of Gautam Yadav’s post.
- The complainant targeted only Kangana and not Yadav, showing malafide intent.
The magistrate had sufficient material before him, including witness statements and documents, to conclude a prima facie case of defamation. The absence of a report from TCIPL did not preclude him from proceeding further, the Court held.
It further noted that TCIPL had clarified it could not provide information on the tweet as it was not the content owner, and its role was limited to marketing and development. The actual platform was controlled by Twitter Inc., USA.
There is no evidence that the retweet was made in good faith for public good or for protecting anyone’s interest. The Magistrate was not required to conclusively rule on these defences at the stage of summoning.
Read Also:-10 New Judges Appointed to Punjab and Haryana High Court
It also clarified that a minor mistake in describing the retweet as a tweet did not prove non-application of mind by the magistrate.
There are specific allegations of defamation, and the complaint cannot be deemed malafide simply because it targets only the petitioner. Filing such a complaint to vindicate one’s rights is justified under law.
Title: Kangana Ranaut v. Mahinder Kaur