A local court in Bathinda on Monday granted bail to actor and politician Kangana Ranaut in a criminal defamation case filed by 73-year-old farmer Mahinder Kaur, who accused the actor of making defamatory remarks about her on social media during the 2020–2021 farmers’ protests.

Bail granted by Bathinda court

The order was passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class Lakhbir Singh around 2 pm, after Kangana appeared in court in person amid heightened security. The court granted her bail on furnishing a bond of ₹50,000, which was submitted by her father.

The actor, who appeared visibly composed, told the court that there had been a “misunderstanding” about her 2021 social media post. She added that she respected every ‘mata’ (mother) and was deeply apologetic for any hurt caused.

Kaur’s lawyer, Raghbir Singh Behniwal, said that while Kangana had apologised, the family had not accepted her apology, questioning the timing of her statement.

“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 full faith in the legal system,” Behniwal told ThePrint.

Background of the case

The case stems from a criminal complaint filed by Mahinder Kaur, a farmer from Bathinda, under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deal with defamation and its punishment.

Kaur alleged that Kangana, during the farmers’ protests against the now-repealed farm laws, had retweeted a photograph of her with a caption comparing her to the elderly protester from Shaheen Bagh, and claimed that she was “available for ₹100”.

Kaur clarified in her complaint that she had no connection to the woman mentioned in the actor’s tweet and said that the post falsely portrayed her as a paid protester, tarnishing her reputation among fellow farmers and the public.

Court proceedings and earlier appeals

Kangana had initially sought exemption from personal appearance, citing security threats, including an incident in June 2024 when she was allegedly attacked by a CISF woman constable at Chandigarh airport. However, the Bathinda court rejected her request and directed her to appear in person.

Her counsel had argued that the post in question was merely a retweet made “in good faith” and without mens rea (malicious intent). They also maintained that the original tweet was made by another user, Adhivakta Gautam Yadav, and that the complaint against Kangana alone was “mala fide”.

Despite these arguments, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in August 2025, dismissed Kangana’s plea to quash the defamation case, stating that there was no evidence to show her statement was made in good faith or for public good.

Supreme Court proceedings and withdrawal

Kangana later approached the Supreme Court, seeking to set aside the proceedings. However, a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that the actor had “added spice” to her quoted tweet, thereby intensifying the defamatory impact.

Following this observation, the actor withdrew her petition from the top court earlier this year.

The Bathinda court has now listed the case for the next hearing on 24 November 2025, when further arguments are expected to be presented.

About the farmers’ protest and Mahinder Kaur’s role

Kaur, who hails from an agricultural family in Bathinda, actively participated in the farmers’ agitation of 2020–2021 against the three contentious farm laws. Despite her age, she travelled to Delhi and joined demonstrations organised by various kisan unions.

She stated in her petition that Kangana’s remarks were false, malicious, and defamatory, and that they had caused her “mental agony and humiliation”. The post, she said, led to her being misrepresented on social media and among the farming community.

What lies ahead

While Kangana’s bail brings temporary relief, the trial will continue in the Bathinda court. Legal experts say the outcome may hinge on whether her post qualifies as “good faith communication” protected under the Ninth and Tenth Exceptions of Section 499 IPC, or as defamation under criminal law.

The controversy has once again revived discussions on the responsibility of celebrities while commenting on politically sensitive issues on social media.