Today, the Supreme Court, while hearing a petition seeking quashing defamation case against Actor and Member of Parliament, Kangana Ranaut, over retweet on Farmer's Protest in 2021, orally remarked that it was not merely a retweet but Ranaut added spice to her post.

Earlier, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to quash a defamation case against Ranaut.

The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing the matter and orally remarked, "Don't ask us to comment upon what is being written in that retweet...It may prejudice your trial."


At the outset, the Counsel appearing for Ranaut, submitted that the actor has only retweeted the post.

Upon which, Justice Mehta asked, "What do you have to say about your comments at page...It's not a simple retweet as you say, you have added spice to it."

The Counsel tried to draw court's attention upon certain comments made on the tweet, however, the Court said that it was a subject matter of trial.

Justice Mehta remarked, "The interpretation of this tweet cannot be considered in a quashing petitioner."

The Counsel continued to urge that the clarification was not considered by the Courts below.

Thereafter, the Justice Mehta said, " The complaint may be dismissed on account of inadmissibility of evidence...don't ask us to comment upon what is being written in that retweet...It may prejudice your trial."

Accordingly, the Counsel withdrew the SLP.

Background

Initially, Kangana had filed a Petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), seeking quashing of criminal complaint under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as well as the summoning order passed by the Magistrate along with all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom at the High Court.

In her complaint, it was averred that the Complainant belonged to an agricultural family as her father, husband, and children are farmers; income from agriculture is their only source of earning. That as the Complainant’s family was also affected by the said enactments, they were actively participating in the protests being held under the aegis of different ‘kisan’ (farmer) unions. That Complainant was also part of ‘dharnas’ (sit-ins) and demonstrations since the beginning of the protest and despite her old age, she along with other protesters went to Delhi to participate in the agitation. The complainant alleged that Ranaut made a defamatory post in X.

However, the High Court refused to quadg

Cause Title: Kangana Ranaut V. Mahinder Kaur (SLP(Crl) No. 13756/2025 II-B)

Justice Vikram NathJustice Sandeep Mehta

Pridhi Chopra

    Pridhi Chopra was earlier practicing as an Advocate in Delhi. She pursued B.A. (H) English from Gargi College, University of Delhi, and subsequently pursued a degree in Law.