The Supreme Court of India on September 8, 2025, dismissed the plea filed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (Telangana unit) seeking restoration of a criminal defamation case against Telangana Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy. The case stemmed from Reddy’s political remarks during the 2024 Lok Sabha campaign, where he alleged that the BJP, if it secured 400 seats, would abolish reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs.
The ruling, delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, underscores the judiciary’s consistent position that courts should not be dragged into political disputes and that political leaders must maintain resilience in the face of criticism.
What Was the Case About?
The controversy began when Revanth Reddy, during an election campaign, accused the *BJP of planning to alter the Constitution to end caste-based reservations if the party secured a sweeping majority of 400 seats in the 2024 general elections.
Taking offence, Karam Venkateshwarlau, the State General Secretary of the BJP Telangana unit, filed a criminal complaint. The trial court took cognizance and issued notice against Reddy under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, including:
- Sections 120A, 124A, 153, 153A, 153B, 171C, 171G, 499, 505, and 511 of IPC
- Section 125 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951
The allegations primarily revolved around criminal defamation, sedition, promoting enmity, and spreading false statements during elections.
Aggrieved by the initiation of proceedings, Reddy approached the Telangana High Court, which quashed the complaint. The BJP, dissatisfied with this outcome, moved the Supreme Court.
Telangana High Court’s Key Findings
The Telangana High Court, in its ruling by Justice K. Lakshman, made two significant observations:
- Locus Standi of BJP Telangana: The allegedly defamatory statements were directed against the national BJP party. Therefore, BJP Telangana could not be considered a “person aggrieved” within the meaning of Section 199(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
- Complaint by an Individual: The complaint was filed by Karam Venkateshwarlau in his personal capacity. However, nowhere in the complaint did he establish how he, as an individual or as a party member, was personally defamed by the statements.
Additionally, the High Court highlighted that political speeches are often exaggerated. To stretch such rhetoric into criminal defamation, it observed, would amount to “another exaggeration.”
Supreme Court’s Dismissal
When the matter came before the Supreme Court, the bench wasted little time. As soon as the case was called, CJI BR Gavai told Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for BJP Telangana, “Dismissed.”
When Kumar sought to press the matter, the CJI reiterated that courts cannot be transformed into political battlegrounds. He further emphasized:
“If you are in politics, you should have a thick skin.”
The Supreme Court, therefore, upheld the Telangana High Court’s decision, making it clear that political debates and campaign speeches cannot be easily converted into grounds for criminal prosecution.
Legal Issues Involved
The case raised important questions around defamation law, political speech, and the scope of criminal complaints under Section 199 CrPC.
1. Who is a “Person Aggrieved”?
Under Section 199(1) CrPC, a defamation complaint can only be filed by a “person aggrieved.” The Telangana High Court ruled, and the Supreme Court implicitly agreed, that political parties or their state units cannot automatically claim to be ‘aggrieved persons’ unless the defamatory remark is directly targeted at them.
2. Political Speech and Free Expression
The judgment reinforces the principle that political speech enjoys wider latitude. Courts have consistently recognized that campaign statements are often made in a charged, exaggerated atmosphere. Criminalizing such speech too readily would chill free expression and undermine democratic debate.
3. Limits of Criminal Defamation
By dismissing this plea, the Supreme Court reasserted its cautious approach toward criminal defamation in the context of politics. It implicitly recognized that not every political allegation or accusation should be judicially scrutinized under defamation laws.
Significance of the Judgment
This ruling holds broader implications for Indian democracy and election-related litigation:
- Curtailing Political Litigation: Courts reiterated their unwillingness to be dragged into partisan disputes, thereby discouraging misuse of criminal law for political purposes.
- Protecting Political Rhetoric: By emphasizing that politicians must have “thick skin,” the Court safeguarded robust political debate as an essential feature of democracy.
- Clarifying Locus Standi: The interpretation of “person aggrieved” narrows the scope of who can file defamation complaints, preventing vexatious or proxy litigation.
- Reinforcing Free Speech: The decision aligns with earlier rulings where courts protected political expression, even if controversial, from undue criminal prosecution.
Related Precedents
This decision echoes past judgments where the judiciary resisted over-criminalization of political speech:
- Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) – where the Supreme Court upheld criminal defamation but also acknowledged the need to balance free speech.
- Ramesh v. Union of India (1988) – political or public interest speech must be assessed in context, not isolated.
- Rajdeep Sardesai v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2015) – mere criticism or commentary cannot automatically amount to defamation.
Political Context
The backdrop of this case is the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, where Revanth Reddy, a vocal critic of the BJP, claimed that the party intended to amend the Constitution to scrap reservations.
While the BJP denied such intentions, the allegation became a flashpoint in Telangana’s political landscape. The attempt to prosecute Reddy under multiple serious charges reflected the polarized political climate in the state.
However, both the High Court and the Supreme Court have now made it clear that such disputes belong in the political arena, not the courtroom.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s dismissal of BJP Telangana’s defamation plea against CM Revanth Reddy marks another important instance where the judiciary has reinforced the boundary between politics and law. The decision highlights three key takeaways:
- Defamation complaints require a clear, direct aggrieved party.
- Political speeches enjoy greater protection due to their nature.
- Courts should not become arenas for political rivalry.
By telling politicians to have “thick skin,” the Supreme Court has sent a strong message that democracy thrives on debate, dissent, and sometimes exaggerated rhetoric, and it is the electorate—not the judiciary—that must ultimately judge political claims.
Also Read
Supreme Court Justice Recuses from PIL Seeking Probe into Viceroy’s Allegations Against Vedanta
