The Supreme Court is set to hear on September 12 the plea filed by Bollywood actor and BJP MP Kangana Ranaut, challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s refusal to quash a defamation case filed against her.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta will consider the matter, which stems from remarks allegedly made by the actor during the 2020–21 farmer protests.
Background
The case relates to a retweet posted by Ranaut during the farmer protests against the now-repealed farm laws. In the retweet, she allegedly compared a protester from Punjab to Bilkis Bano, the elderly woman associated with the Shaheen Bagh protests, which gained international attention after being featured in Time magazine.
The complaint was lodged in 2021 by Mahinder Kaur, a 73-year-old protester from Bahadurgarh Jandian village in Punjab’s Bathinda district. Kaur claimed that the tweet falsely and maliciously tarnished her reputation by associating her with an unrelated protest. She stated that despite her age, she had actively participated in demonstrations and sit-ins since the start of the agitation but had no connection with the woman from Shaheen Bagh.
According to her complaint, the tweet amounted to “false imputations and defamatory remarks” that damaged her dignity and lowered her esteem in the eyes of others.
Court’s Decision To Dismiss Plea
Ranaut had filed the plea under Section 482 of the erstwhile CrPC seeking to quash both the complaint and the subsequent trial court’s summons issued under Sections 499/500 of the IPC (now repealed).
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed her plea on August 1, holding that the complaint was not mala fide. The judges observed,
“There are specific allegations against the petitioner who is a celebrity, that false and defamatory imputations by her in the retweet have dented the respondent’s reputation and lowered her in her own estimation, as also in the eyes of others. Therefore, filing of the complaint to vindicate her rights cannot be termed mala fide.”
The court further noted that the magistrate had carefully considered the material on record and recorded satisfaction that a prima facie case under Section 499 IPC was made out.
Arguments Raised By Kangana’s Counsel
Kangana’s legal team contended that the trial court lacked jurisdiction. They argued that after recording preliminary evidence, the magistrate called for a report from Twitter Communications India Private Limited (TCIPL) but failed to receive it before issuing summons.
The defense also argued that Ranaut had no intention to harm the complainant’s reputation.
However, Justice Dahiya, delivering the High Court’s order, observed,
“Non-receipt of report by TCIPL as to whether the alleged retweet has been made by the petitioner cannot be a ground to divest the Magistrate of jurisdiction under Section 202 CrPC.”
The court explained that TCIPL was neither the owner nor in control of twitter.com and merely engaged in research and marketing, making its report irrelevant to the jurisdiction issue.
Court’s Upcoming Consideration
With the High Court having dismissed her plea, Kangana has now approached the Supreme Court seeking relief.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
