In a significant ruling, the Telangana High Court on August 1, 2025, quashed the criminal proceedings against Chief Minister Revanth Reddy in a defamation case filed by the Telangana unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Justice K. Lakshman, while allowing the criminal petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Surakhsa Sanhita (BNSS), held that the state BJP unit lacked the legal standing and authorization to file the complaint.
The complaint, dated May 10, 2024, alleged that Mr. Revanth Reddy delivered a defamatory and provocative speech on May 4, 2024, during the 2024 General Elections campaign, accusing the BJP of planning to abolish SC, ST, and BC reservations. BJP's Telangana General Secretary, Mr. Kasam Venkateshwarlu, filed the complaint under Sections 199 and 200 of the CrPC, invoking charges under IPC Sections 120A, 124A, 153, 153A, 153B, 171C, 171G, 499, 505, 511 and Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Read Also:-Supreme Court Dismisses Plea for Delimitation in Andhra Pradesh & Telangana
According to the complainant, Mr. Reddy’s remarks—widely circulated in the media—were part of a calculated political strategy aimed at misleading voters, especially from marginalized communities. The speech allegedly caused reputational harm to the BJP and instilled fear among voters. The trial court, based on statements from BJP functionaries, found a prima facie case under Section 499 IPC and Section 125 of the RP Act and issued notice to Mr. Reddy on August 23, 2024.
The Court emphasized that only an 'aggrieved person' can file a defamation complaint under Section 199 of the CrPC. The Telangana BJP unit, not being a separately recognized legal entity, failed to qualify as such.
Mr. Reddy’s counsel argued that the speech was a part of political discourse and did not constitute criminal defamation. It was further argued that political parties, during elections, routinely critique each other and such statements are protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The defence also contended that no personal injury or factual defamatory content could be established, and exceptions to Section 499 IPC applied in this context.
"In a democracy, elections necessarily involve political parties attempting to lower the public perception of their rivals. Making political criticism subject to criminal defamation would ultimately destroy democratic discourse," argued Mr. Reddy's counsel.
Read Also:-Telangana High Court Cancels Free Land Allotment to IAMC, Cites Violation of Public Trust
The Court ruled that although a political party can be an ‘association of people’ under Explanation 2 to Section 499 IPC and may maintain a complaint through an authorised representative, in this case, the Telangana BJP unit did not present any proof of authorisation from the national BJP. Furthermore, the complaint did not clarify whether Mr. Venkateshwarlu acted as a member of the defamed group or under official authorisation.
Justice K. Lakshman noted that the alleged speech referred broadly to the BJP and did not single out the Telangana state unit. Thus, the complainant had no legal standing to file the case independently.
Political parties are indeed constitutionally recognized entities, but when the complaint is filed on behalf of a national party, it must be done through proper authorization. No such document was presented before the Court, the judge observed.
The Court found that Mr. Venkateshwarlu’s claims of having verbal instructions from the state party president were neither recorded in the complaint nor mentioned in the deposition. Also, during cross-examination, it was admitted that no official authorisation was submitted.
The High Court stressed that continuation of proceedings based on such a procedurally and legally deficient complaint would amount to an abuse of the judicial process.
"To allege that political speech during election campaigns amounts to defamation without adequate legal grounding is an overreach and suppresses free political expression," the Court held.
Citing multiple Supreme Court decisions, the judge reiterated that while courts must be cautious in using their quashing powers, they are justified in doing so where proceedings amount to legal harassment.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the order dated August 23, 2024, issued by the Principal Special Judicial First-Class Magistrate for Excise Cases at Hyderabad in C.C. No. 312 of 2024, and set aside the criminal proceedings in the matter.
Counsel for State: PP
Counsel for R2: Devineni Vijay Kumar