Kharge Hate Speech Case: Delhi Court Reserves Order on Revision Petition
Rouse Avenue Court to decide on a revision petition against Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge regarding alleged hate speech in Karnataka.
The Rouse Avenue Court has reserved its order regarding a revision petition filed against Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge. The legal battle stems from a controversial speech delivered by the Congress leader during an election rally in Karnataka in April 2023, which an RSS member has labeled as objectionable.
The Core of the Dispute
The matter began when Ravinder Gupta, a member of the RSS, filed a criminal complaint alleging that Mallikarjun Kharge engaged in hate speech during a rally in Naregal, Karnataka. Gupta claimed the speech promoted enmity between different communities, seeking the registration of an FIR against the Congress chief.
However, the Tis Hazari Court previously examined the complaint and declined to take cognisance. On November 11, 2025, the magistrate court dismissed the complaint, concluding that no offence of hate speech had been committed and that the statements made were not targeted at any specific religion or community.
The Legal Challenge
Dissatisfied with the dismissal, Ravinder Gupta moved a revision petition to set aside the Tis Hazari Court's order. Represented by Advocate Gagan Gandhi, the petitioner sought to revive the case against Kharge.
In response, Mallikarjun Kharge filed a detailed reply on April 2, 2026, categorically denying all allegations. His legal team argued that there was no basis for charges under sections 153A, 153B, 295A, 499, 120B, and 34 of the IPC 1860, asserting that the complaint lacked merit.
Jurisdictional Battle
Beyond the merits of the speech, Kharge’s defense raised a significant legal objection regarding the authority of the court. The reply questioned whether the Special Court had the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition.
The defense argued that while Special Courts are empowered to conduct trials for MPs and MLAs, this does not automatically grant them revisional jurisdiction over orders passed by a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) at the Tis Hazari Court, as the JMFC is not inferior to the Special Court. Consequently, they claimed the petition was not maintainable under section 438 of the BNSS 2023 (formerly section 397 of the CrPC).
What Happens Next?
Special Judge Ruby Neeraj Kumar has heard the submissions from both sides and has received the necessary written arguments. With the proceedings now complete, the court has reserved its decision.
The final order, which will determine whether the dismissal of the complaint stands or if the case against the Congress President will be reopened, is scheduled to be pronounced on November 20.