On Friday, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a criminal petition filed by actor-turned-politician Kangana Ranaut, clearing the way for a defamation trial against her. Ranaut had requested the court to quash both the underlying complaint and the summons issued by a Bathinda court under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The defamation case arises from a retweet Ranaut shared during the 2020–21 farmers’ protests. In her post, she wrote, “Ha ha ha she is the same dadi who featured in Time magazine for being the most powerful Indian…. And she is available in 100 rupees. Pakistani jurno’s have hijacked international PR for India in an embarrassing way. We need our own people to speak for us internationally.”During a hearing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya carefully reviewed the evidence and arguments.
The court observed, “There are specific allegations against the petitioner, who is a celebrity, that false and defamatory imputations by her in the retweet have dented the respondent’s reputation and lowered her in her own estimation, as also in the eyes of others. Therefore, filing of the complaint to vindicate her rights cannot be termed mala fide.”Justice Dahiya emphasized that the order was passed after a thorough application of mind to the facts and preliminary evidence in light of relevant legal provisions.
Ranaut’s defense rested on the claim that the retweet was shared without malice and in good faith, unaware of any factual inaccuracies. However, the court rejected this, stating she was not automatically protected under the Ninth or Tenth Exceptions to Section 499 IPC, which cover statements made in good faith for public good or cautioning others.Importantly, the court noted that Ranaut did not apologize or acknowledge the error after being informed that the person in the image was wrongly identified—not the “Shaheen Bano” or the “Time magazine” figure as suggested.
The Bathinda magistrate had earlier issued summons on February 22, 2022, after finding sufficient preliminary evidence for a prima facie case of defamation. The High Court upheld this decision, confirming that the magistrate had “duly applied mind to the material on record” before proceeding.
