New Delhi: A Bathinda court on Monday granted bail to actor-politician Kangana Ranaut in a criminal defamation case where she was accused of posting defamatory remarks on social media about an elderly woman farmer during the 2020-2021 farmers’ protests.
Saying that there was a “misunderstanding” about her 2021 post and that she respects every ‘mata’ or mother, Kangana also added that she was deeply apologetic over the incident. However, the aggrieved family is yet to accept her apology.
Speaking to ThePrint, complainant Mahinder Kaur’s lawyer Raghbir Singh Behniwal said, “The family’s stance is, why is she apologising four years after the incident, and that too after having gone to the Supreme Court and challenging our case. However, they maintain that they have full faith in the legal system.”
The case arose out of a criminal complaint filed by 73-year-old Mahinder Kaur in the aftermath of the protests (against the now-repealed farm laws), under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deal with the offence of criminal defamation, and the punishment for it.
“The bail order was passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class Lakhbir Singh, around 2 pm in the afternoon. Kangana was physically present in the court which had amped up the security that day. It was subject to a bail bond of Rs 50,000, furnished by her father,” the complainant’s lawyer Raghbir Singh Behniwal told ThePrint.
Although Kangana had earlier sought exemption from appearing in court physically in this case, citing threats to her life in light of instances like the airport attack on her by a CISF woman constable in June 2024, the request was rejected by the Bathinda court, which finally granted her bail on Monday.
“The court finally granted her bail saying that the offence she was accused of was a bailable one, carrying a punishment of only up to three years imprisonment,” Kaur’s lawyer told ThePrint while adding that the case will be taken up again on 24 November.
The story so far
In February 2022, Kangana was summoned by the Bathinda court in connection with this case. Her lawyer had challenged the summons, arguing that Kangana had only retweeted in good faith, and without intending to harm Kaur’s reputation.
Through her lawyer, Kangana argued that the social media post which led to the case against her was without any element of mens rea or malice, and there was no reason for the magistrate to proceed against her.
Pointing out that Kangana’s remarks were part of a retweet, and not an actual tweet, Kangana’s lawyer also said the complaint against her was “mala fide” or made with ill intent, since Kaur filed it only against the actor, and not against Adhivakta Gautam Yadav, who had posted the original tweet.
However, in August, this year, the Punjab and Haryana High Court junked her plea for quashing the criminal defamation case against her. In doing so, a bench of Justice Tribhuva Dahiya observed that there was no evidence to show that her statement allegedly supporting another post on Twitter, was made in good faith or for public good.
The premise of Kangana’s entire case was based on the Ninth and Tenth Exceptions to Section 499 IPC (defamation), which essentially exempt statements made in good faith, made with caution, or simply for the good of the public or to protect others, from the rigours of the defamation law.
In a nutshell, the Ninth Exception exempts statements made in good faith by a person for protection of their or other’s interests, while the Tenth Exception immunises statements conveyed in caution, in good faith, and for public good.
Dismissing the plea filed by Kangana to quash the defamation case, Justice Dahiya noted, “…There is no substance in the next submission by learned counsel for the petitioner that the retweet was in good faith, and in the absence of mens rea (malice) she was entitled to the benefit of the Ninth and Tenth Exception to Section 499 IPC.”
Subsequently, Kangana approached the Supreme Court, seeking to set aside this criminal case against her, but to no avail, as a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta noted that she added “spice” to her quoted tweet, as she retweeted the old lady’s picture. This also led Kangana to withdraw her petition from the top court.
Why Kaur took Kangana to court
In her petition, Kaur said that she belonged to an agricultural family, and her father, husband and children were all farmers, who derived their income from agriculture. She added that she too used to help her family in the cultivation of agricultural lands, and was aggrieved after the farm laws were passed nearly five years back, in 2020.
Owing to this, she, along with her family, actively participated in protests, held by different farmers or kisan unions. Despite her age, Kaur, along with other protesters, travelled to Delhi to participate in the agitation.
However, the crux of the issue was when Kangana took to Twitter (now ‘X’) and retweeted a picture of Kaur, along with the caption, “Ha ha ha, she is the same dadi who featured in Time magazine for being the most powerful Indian…. And she is available for Rs 100. Pakistani journos have hijacked international PR for India in an embarrassing way. We need our own people to speak for us internationally.”
Rejecting these allegations, Kaur told the court that she had nothing to do with the ‘Dadi’ from Shaheen Bagh, who was featured in the Time magazine article that Kangana was referring to.
Pointing out that the statements were “false and defamatory”, Kaur said they hurt her pride, honour and defamed her on social media, adding that she fell in her own estimation and in the eyes of protesting farmers. Kaur also told the court that various Bollywood celebrities and Punjabi singers had also shared the said tweet.
Kaur also said that it was indisputable that Kangana had herself reposted the post which was defamatory on the face of it, and contained serious allegations against the person and character of the complainant.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)
Also read: Why Punjab & Haryana HC refused to quash defamation case against Kangana for farmers’ protest remark