State Units Of National Political Party Have No Separate Existence: Telangana High Court Quashes Defamation Case By BJP Against CM Revanth Reddy
The Telangana High Court said that in the absence of any recognition, the Telangana unit of the BJP cannot claim to be a separate identifiable group independent of the BJP, the national party.
Justice K. Lakshman, Telangana High Court, Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy
The Telangana High Court has quashed a Defamation case filed against Chief Minister (CM) A. Revanth Reddy by the State Unit of the the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), also a national political party.
A Criminal Petition was preferred under Section 528 of the the Bharatiya Nagrik Surakhsa Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking to quash the proceedings by setting aside the Order of the Trial Court.
A Single Bench of Justice K. Lakshman held, “It is pertinent to note that, the Bharatiya Janata Party is recognised as a national party by the Election Commission of India. Meaning thereby that, there is only one Bharatiya Janata Party which is recognised as a political entity. Maridhas (Supra), relied upon by the Petitioner, also held that a political party is an association on account of its recognition with the Election Commission of India under the RP Act, 1951 and the Constitution of India. The state units of a political party are not separately recognised by the Election Commission of India under the RP Act, 1951. Further, for the purposes of Schedule X of the Constitution of India too, it is only the ‘national unit’ of the political party which is recognised. The state units of a national political party have no independent/separate existence.”
The Bench added that in the absence of any recognition, the Telangana unit of the BJP, i.e., the Complainant cannot claim to be a separate identifiable group independent of the BJP, the national party.
Senior Advocate T. Niranjan Reddy and Advocate T. Bala Mohan Reddy appeared for the Petitioner while Senior Advocate Devineni Vijay Kumar and Public Prosecutor Hamsa Devineni appeared for the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The Respondent/Complainant i.e., BJP (Telangana) had filed a Complaint against the Petitioner i.e., the Telangana’s CM and a member of the Indian National Congress (INC). The said Complaint was under Sections 199 and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), alleging that the Petitioner delivered an “illegal, false, defamatory and provocative” speech against the Complainant in May 2024. It was contended that the Petitioner connived with the Telangana Congress Party “to develop a fake and dubious political narrative” that the BJP will end reservations. These remarks, according to the Complainant, were defamatory and promote enmity between communities. Further, it was alleged that, the Petitioner’s speech was watched and shared online by innumerable people.
According to the Complainant, the contents of the speech were widely reported in print, electronic, and social media. The alleged defamatory and divisive speech, according to the Complainant, lowered the reputation of the BJP as a political party. The Complainant sought registration of a criminal case against the Petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 120A, 124A, 153, 153A, 153B, 171C, 171G, 499, 505, and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 125 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (RP Act). On consideration of the contents of the complaint, the Trial Court ordered notice to the Petitioner, holding that a prima facie case was made out against him for the alleged offences. Challenging this, the Petitioner was before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “Even if one were to assume that the Complainant, i.e., the Telangana unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party is an identifiable and a determinable group, it is not an ‘aggrieved person’. … Admittedly, the alleged defamatory speech was made against the Bharatiya Janata Party. It is also admitted that, the alleged speech was made during the election campaign for the 2024 general elections in the country. This obviously indicates that the speech alluded to the national unit of the Bharatitya Janata Party.”
The Court said that a perusal of the alleged defamatory speech indicates that, no reference was made to the Telangana unit of BJP and that the BJP (Telangana), represented by its State General Secretary, had filed the complaint in its independent capacity.
“However, as the alleged defamatory speech was directed towards the national unit or the Bharatiya Janata Party, the Complainant herein is not directly defamed or aggrieved. Therefore, Mr. Kasam Venkateshwarlu, claiming to be the General Secretary of Bharatiya Janata Party Telangana Unit could have filed the complaint contending that being the Member of Bharatiya Janata Party and also the General Secretary of Telangana Unit of Bharatiya Janata Party is an aggrieved person by the said speech. He could have contended that he is a member of the allegedly defamed association of people i.e., Bharatiya Janata Party”, it noted.
The Court further held that the Complainant, in its individual capacity as a separate state unit, was not directly aggrieved and it is not a separate legal entity.
“Even if this Court were to accept that the Complainant is a part of the national unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party and may be treated as a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party, the complaint is not maintainable for the lack of authorisation. Neither the Complainant nor its representative, Mr. Kasam Venkateshwarlu, were authorised by the national unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party to file the complaint. As discussed supra, in the context of companies and associations like political parties, authorisation is a sine qua non to maintain a criminal complaint under Section 199 of the CrPC”, it remarked.
Conclusion
The Court emphasised that the power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases, however, where the initiation of criminal proceedings suffers from material defects or where such criminal proceedings constitute abuse of process, the inherent powers can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings.
“This Court refrains to discuss the contents of the alleged speech and the issue of its defamatory nature. However, this Court agrees with the Petitioner’s submissions that, where political speeches are involved, the threshold to allege defamation and maintain a complaint under Section 199 of the CrPC shall be much higher. Political speeches are often exaggerated. To allege that such speeches are defamatory is another exaggeration”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition and quashed the proceedings against the Petitioner.
Cause Title- A. Revanth Reddy v. The State of Telangana & Another (Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5823 OF 2025)
