Telangana HC quashes defamation case against CM Revanth Reddy

Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court on Friday quashed a defamation case against Telangana Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy. The case originated from a complaint filed by Kasam Venkateshwarlu, the Telangana General Secretary for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), concerning remarks made by Reddy during a 2024 Lok Sabha election campaign rally. The complaint, lodged on May 10, 2024, alleged that during an election meeting on May 4, 2024, in the Bhadradri Kothagudem district, Revanth Reddy made “false and defamatory” statements against the Bharatiya Janata Party.

Venkateshwarlu claimed that Reddy had stated the BJP, if it came to power, would amend the Constitution and abolish caste-based reservations. This, the complainant argued, was a misleading statement that harmed the reputation of the BJP and its members.

The Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (JFCM) for Excise Cases, functioning as the designated MP/MLA court in Hyderabad, had taken cognizance of the complaint and summoned the Chief Minister to appear in August 2024. In response, Revanth Reddy filed a petition in the High Court to have the proceedings quashed. Arguing for the petitioner, senior counsel T. Niranjan Reddy contended that the statement, when read in its entirety, did not constitute defamation. The counsel emphasized that the statement was a political speech delivered during an election campaign and was not directed



at any specific individual but was a criticism of a political rival.

Furthermore, the counsel argued that the complainant, a political party’s general secretary, could not claim to be an “aggrieved person” under Section 199 of the Cr.P.C. since the alleged defamation was against the party as a whole and not a specific individual. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, Palle Nageswar Rao and the complainant’s counsel opposed the petition, stating that the comments were defamatory and intended to mislead the public and influence the election outcome. They argued that the statements created a sense of fear among voters and constituted an offense.

Justice K. Lakshman observed that the speech, made in a political context, was a criticism of a political party and did not amount to defamation under Section 499 of the IPC. The Court reiterated that political criticism is a protected form of speech in a democracy. The judge also noted that the complaint was not maintainable under Section 199 of the Cr.P.C. as a political party is not a “person” who can be aggrieved by defamation in this context. The court concluded that allowing the case to proceed would be an abuse of the judicial process, as the complaint lacked the essential ingredients of defamation.

The High Court, therefore, allowed the quash petition, setting aside the proceedings initiated by the MP/MLA Court.