Court Grants Mallikarjun Kharge Additional Time to File Reply in Hate Speech Revision Case

NEW DELHI — In a significant legal development, the Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi has granted Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge additional time to file his formal response in a revision petition concerning alleged hate speech. The case, which stems from a 2023 election rally in Karnataka, has returned to the judicial spotlight following an appeal by the original complainant against a lower court’s decision to dismiss the matter.

On March 20, 2026, Special Judge (MP/MLA cases) Jitendra Singh presided over the hearing and accepted the request from Kharge’s legal counsel, Advocate Easha Bakshi, for more time to prepare and submit a reply. The court directed that the response must be filed before the next scheduled date, with a mandatory advance copy provided to the opposing party. The matter has now been listed for its next hearing on April 1, 2026, marking a critical juncture in the ongoing legal challenge.

The controversy originated from a criminal complaint filed by Ravindra Gupta, a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), regarding remarks Kharge made during an election rally in Naregal, Gadag district, Karnataka, on April 27, 2023. The complainant alleged that Kharge’s comparison of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the ideologies of the BJP and RSS to a “poisonous snake” constituted hate speech and was intended to incite public sentiment. Kharge had later clarified that his remarks were directed at the political ideology of his opponents rather than the Prime Minister personally, stating, “If you lick it, you’re dead,” to illustrate the danger he associated with those policies.

In November 2025, the trial court at Tis Hazari dismissed the original complaint. Judicial Magistrate Preeti Rajoria ruled that the statements were directed at political and ideological positions rather than a specific community, religion, or ethnicity, thus failing to meet the legal threshold for hate speech under Sections 153A or 295A of the IPC. The court also held that defamation charges under Section 500 were not maintainable because the complaint was filed by a third party rather than the individual allegedly defamed. The magistrate cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India, which requires a direct link between speech and public disorder to criminalize such remarks.

The current proceedings at Rouse Avenue Court represent a revision petition aimed at setting aside that dismissal. This follows a previous failed attempt in December 2024, where the same court declined to direct the registration of an FIR, noting that all evidence was already within the complainant’s reach and did not require police investigation. The complainant argues that the trial court overlooked the potential for such remarks to disturb social harmony, while Kharge’s defense continues to maintain that the speech was a protected form of political criticism.