Skip to main content

Court Dismisses Defamation Case Against UP CM Yogi Adityanath Over "Kathmullapan" Remark


A Lucknow court has dismissed a defamation complaint against Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, brought over his controversial use of the term “Kathmullapan” during a speech in the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council in February 2024.

Why the Case Was Dismissed: Court’s Key Findings

1. Immunity Under Article 194 of the Constitution

The court emphasized that statements made inside the legislature are protected under Article 194, which grants legal immunity to lawmakers for anything said within the House.

Judge Alok Verma observed:
“Since the alleged statements were made by the Chief Minister in the Legislature, he enjoys immunity under Article 194. Therefore, no legal proceedings can be initiated against him in this court for those remarks.”

2. Complainant Not a Directly Aggrieved Party

The case was filed by Amitabh Thakur, a former IPS officer and president of the Azad Adhikar Sena, who argued that Yogi’s comments were defamatory and hurt religious sentiments.
However, the court held that only someone personally defamed can bring a defamation case—Thakur did not meet that criterion.

3. Absence of Mandatory Government Sanction

Since Yogi Adityanath is a sitting Chief Minister, prior government sanction is legally required before initiating such proceedings.
This procedural requirement was not fulfilled, making the complaint legally unsustainable.

What Did Yogi Adityanath Say?

During a fiery address criticizing opposition parties, CM Yogi remarked:

"समाजवादियों का चरित्र दोहरा हो चुका है, ये अपने बच्चों को पढ़ाएंगे इंग्लिश स्कूल में और दूसरों के बच्चों के लिए कहेंगे उर्दू पढ़ाओ… उनको मौलवी बनाना चाहते हैं, ‘कठमुल्लापन’ की ओर देश को ले जाना चाहते हैं, ये नहीं चल सकता है…"

Translation:
“The socialists have become double-faced. They’ll send their children to English-medium schools but ask others to study Urdu… They want to make them maulvis, push the country towards fundamentalism. This cannot be tolerated…”

The Allegations and Legal Arguments

Thakur alleged that:

  • The use of the term "Kathmullapan" (a colloquial term often implying religious fundamentalism) was a direct attack on the Muslim community.

  • The statement was defamatory, promoted disharmony, and could incite communal tension.

However, these arguments did not hold up in court due to constitutional immunity and lack of procedural compliance.

What This Means Legally

This ruling reaffirms that:

  • Legislative speech is constitutionally protected to enable open debate.

  • Defamation cases must be filed by directly affected individuals.

  • Proper procedure—including government sanction—is crucial, especially when filing cases against top public officials.

Debate: Immunity vs Accountability

While Article 194 ensures free speech within legislatures, critics argue it may be misused to:

  • Shield inflammatory or divisive statements

  • Avoid public accountability

Supporters, however, stress the importance of protecting democratic speech, even if controversial, to preserve legislative independence.

Want to Know More?

Would you like a deeper dive into Article 194, or similar past cases where politicians faced legal scrutiny over their speeches?

Let us know in the comments below or contact us for a full legal breakdown.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

India’s Extradition Treaties: How They Impact the Vijay Mallya & Nirav Modi Cases

Introduction Extradition is a critical tool in international law that enables countries to hand over fugitives to jurisdictions where they face criminal charges. India has signed extradition treaties with over 50 countries and extradition arrangements with 11 others to curb financial crimes, terrorism, and other serious offenses. However, high-profile cases like Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi have tested India's extradition mechanisms and diplomatic relations. This article explores India's extradition laws, its treaties, and the challenges faced in these landmark cases. Understanding Extradition Laws in India 1. The Extradition Act, 1962 The primary legal framework governing extradition in India is T he Extradition Act, 1962 . This Act provides the conditions and procedures for extradition between India and foreign nations. Extradition Treaty Countries : India has formal agreements with over 50 countries , including the UK, USA, UAE, and Canada , which provide a legal basis for...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Role of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in Framing the Indian Constitution

Introduction Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, popularly known as the architect of the Indian Constitution, played a pivotal role in drafting and shaping the fundamental law of independent India. As the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, he was instrumental in laying the foundation of a just, inclusive, and democratic India. His contributions not only ensured legal safeguards for marginalized communities but also established India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, and democratic republic. In this blog, we will explore Dr. Ambedkar’s contributions to the making of the Indian Constitution, his vision, the challenges he faced, and his lasting impact on Indian democracy. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: A Visionary Leader Born on April 14, 1891, Dr. Ambedkar was a social reformer, economist, and legal expert. His early experiences with caste-based discrimination fueled his determination to uplift the downtrodden and establish a legal system based on equality and justice. He earned multiple degrees, includi...
Post a Comment
Read more

R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884): A Landmark Case on Necessity Defense

Introduction The 1884 case of R v. Dudley and Stephens (14 QBD 273) is one of the most pivotal rulings in English criminal law, specifically regarding the Defense of Necessity in murder cases . This landmark judgment established the legal precedent that necessity cannot be invoked as a defense for murder , even in dire, life-threatening circumstances. Case Background: Survival at Sea In July 1884, Thomas Dudley, Edward Stephens, Brooks, and Richard Parker (a 17-year-old cabin boy) were left adrift after their yacht, Mignonette , sank. For over 20 days, the men survived on limited resources, including turnips and a turtle they managed to catch. As the situation worsened and Parker became gravely weak, Dudley and Stephens resolved to kill and consume Parker in order to survive. Although Brooks abstained from participating in Parker's death, he later consumed Parker's flesh. On the 24th day, the survivors were rescued by a passing ship. Upon their return to England, Dudley and St...
Post a Comment
Read more