Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a petition filed by actress and BJP MP Kangana Ranaut for quashing of a criminal defamation complaint filed against her tweet about a woman-participant in the 2021 farmers' protests.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter.

As soon as the matter was taken, Justice Mehta expressed reservations about the comments of the petitioner. "What about your comments? It was not a simple re-tweet. You have added your own comments. You have added spice," Justice Mehta observed.

The counsel submitted that the petitioner has given a clarification for her comments. Justice Mehta replied that clarification can be given before the trial court. "The situation is such that I can't travel in Punjab," the counsel said. The bench said that she can seek an exemption from personal appearance.

When the counsel sought to argue further, the bench warned that it may be constrained to make adverse comments, which may prejudice her defence in the trial. "Don't ask us to comment on what is written in the tweet. It may prejudice your trial. You may have a valid defence," Justice Mehta said.

The bench suggested that the petitioner withdraw the petition. The petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

Reportedly, Kangana had retweeted a post on Twitter alongwith her own comment about an elderly woman protester, Mahinder Kaur (respondent), stating, “She is the same dadi who featured in Time magazine for being the most powerful Indian…. And she is available in 100 rupees."

This tweet wrongly related Mahinder Kaur to Bilkis Dadi, a participant in Shaheen Bagh protests, and implied that protestors like her were available for hire.

After inquiry, the Magistrate was prima facie satisfied that the retweet was by Ranaut, and the facts alleged in the complaint would constitute the offence under Section 499 IPC.

Initially, Ranaut approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court for quashing of the summoning order in the case, however, her plea was rejected. The Court rejected Kangana's argument that the retweet was in good faith and in the absence of mens rea she was entitled to the benefit of 9th and 10th Exception to Section 499 IPC; and that failure of the Magistrate to examine the issue rendered the impugned order unsustainable.

“A perusal of the Ninth Exception reproduced above shows it is meant to exclude from the offence of defamation an imputation which is made in good faith by a person for protection of his/her or someone else's interests, or for the public good."

Further, the Court pointed out that the 10th Exception excludes from defamation a comment which has been made in good faith and is intended for good of the person to whom it is conveyed or of some other person in whom that person might be interested, or for the public good.

Rejecting the argument that the Magistrate was mandatorily required to consider whether these Exceptions were attracted in her case, the Court said, “as per the settled law, there is no explicit bar on the Magistrate precluding him from considering whether any of the Exceptions protect the person to be summoned; however, such non-consideration by itself would not render the order issuing process illegal.”

The Court also observed that because the respondent-complainant filed a complaint only against Kangana, and not against the person to whom the original tweet was attributed, in itself could not be a ground to contend that the complaint was malafide.

It was further opined that non-receipt of report by Twitter Communications India Private Limited (TCIPL) as to whether the alleged retweet was made by Kangana, could not be a ground to divest the Magistrate of jurisdiction under Section 202 CrPC.

“The report could not be submitted as the company was neither the owner nor in control of www.twitter.com, and was a separate entity engaged only in research, development and marketing,” the Court added.

Case Title: KANGANA RANAUT Versus MAHINDER KAUR, SLP(Crl) No. 13756/2025