Mallikarjun Kharge files reply in revision plea against rejection of complaint, questions court’s jurisdiction

NEW DELHI: Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge has filed his reply in a revision filed against him before the Special MP MLA Court at Rouse Avenue.

In his reply filed on Wednesday, he not only denied the allegations but also questioned the jurisdiction of the revision court, saying that the special court may not have had the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition, as it is against an order passed by a magistrate at Tis Hazari court.

The matter pertains to alleged hate speech at a rally in Karnataka in April 2023. The magistrate’s court had refused to order an FIR. Subsequently, the court had also dismissed the complaint of Ravinder Gupta, who is an advocate and associated with the RSS.

Special Judge (MP-MLA case) Jitendra Singh took the reply on record and listed the matter for arguements on the revision petition. The next date of the hearing is April 15. The revision was filed by advocate Ravindra Gupta through advocate Gagan Gandhi.

The counsel for Mallikarjun Kharge filed the reply and submitted that the Special Court may not have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the present revision petition. The Principal & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, may be the jurisdictional court for the revision and not this court, he contended.

It is also stated that while the Special Courts have the jurisdiction to hold trials on cases involving MPs/MLAs, the same does not grant revisional jurisdiction to this court as the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) is not inferior to it. “Therefore, the present Revision Petition is not maintainable under section 438 of the BNSS 2023 (section 397 of the CrPC),” the reply stated.

The allegations of promoting enmity between communities levelled against the Congress Chief are denied in the reply filed on this behalf. It is stated that there is no basis to allege any offence under sections 153A, 153B, 295A, 499, 120B and 34 of the IPC 1860. The Order under challenge does not constitute a review/recall of the order of 09.12.2024, whereby the JMFC incorrectly took cognisance of the matter.

“Instead, it was passed upon considering the complaint, statement under Section 200 of the CrPC,” the reply stated. There is no merit in the complaint of the Revisionist, as well as in the present Revision Petition. It should be dismissed, the reply said.

A revision was filed in the Rouse Avenue court against the order of the trial court rejecting the Complaint against Congress Chief Mallikarjun Kharge. The Tis Hazari court had rejected a complaint alleging hate speech by Kharge in an election rally in Karnataka in April 2023.

On January 29, the Rouse Avenue court issued a notice to Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge in a revision against the rejection of a complaint against him. This revision petition is filed for a direction for setting aside the order of 11.11.2025 passed by the Tis Hazari court.

On November 11, 2025, the Tis Hazari Court rejected a criminal complaint against Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge. The court had declined cognisance and rejected the Complaint. The complainant, an RSS member also, had alleged hate speech given by Kharge during an election rally in Naregal, Karnataka, in April 2023. The court had said that no offence of hate speech is made out. The statement was not aimed at any community or religion.

Earlier, the court in December 2024 had refused to direct registration of an FIR against Mallika Arjun Kharge. It was alleged that Kharge also gave a defamatory statement against PM Modi. Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Preeti Rajoria had declined the cognisance and dismissed the complaint against Mallikarjun Kharge.

“The statement is merely aimed at the political and ideological principles and not at any community defined by religion, caste, or ethnicity,” JMFC Rajoria said in the order passed on November 11, 2025. The court had also said that there was no violence incited after the said speech.

“Lastly, it is a settled position of law that mere criticism, however harsh and offensive, is not sufficient to make it punishable as “hate speech” unless it tends to incite hatred between two groups,” the court had said. The court said that the evidence on record prima facie, does not point towards the commission of the offence of defamation under Section 500 IPC.

“It is pertinent to note that cognisance for offence under section 500 IPC for offence of defamation is also barred in the present case, since the present complaint has not been filed by the victim himself, the Prime Minister,” JMFC Rajoria had said.

While rejecting the complaint, the court also took into consideration the judgement in the case titled ‘Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan vs. Union of India’ wherein the Supreme Court held that there must be a direct nexus between the hate speech and incitement/public disorder.

The court said, “There are no sufficient grounds for proceeding further against the proposed accused/alleged for any offence as no offence of defamation and hate speech as alleged is made out against the proposed accused”. “Therefore cognizance is declined, and the present complaint is disposed of as dismissed,” the court ordered.

In December 2024, the Court refused to give directions for registration of an FIR against Congress Chief Mallikarjun Kharge. Complainant Ravindra Gupta had alleged hate speech against the BJP and RSS in an election rally in Karnataka in April 2023. The court, after hearing the submissions by Complainant’s counsel and considering the Action Taken Report (ATR) by Delhi Police, refused to give directions for registration of FIR on December 9, 2024.

The Court had said that the complainant is at liberty to lead pre-summoning evidence (PSE). In case any requirement of investigation arises at a later stage related to some disputed facts, the provision of section 202 Cr.PC could be resorted to. The Court had noted that the allegation is that Kharge made some speech in an election rally wherein scathing remarks were made against the BJP and RSS, further complaint is feeling aggrieved since he is a member of RSS.

The court had said that the evidence is well within the reach of the complainant and no assistance of police is required to gather the same. It was alleged that the accused gave hate speech on 27.04.2023, wherein Kharge passed a scathing remark against PM Narendra Modi while addressing election rally at Naregal, Gadag, Karnataka.

It was further stated in the complaint that later on the same day the alleged accused in other election rallies has clarified that his statement was not against the Prime Minister but against the BJP and RSS. Being the member of RSS the complainant is feeling defamed since he is ardent follower and active member of RSS. (ANI)