Karnataka High Court Quashes Defamation Notice Against BJP MLA Yatnal

In a significant legal development, the High Court of Karnataka has quashed a notice issued under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) concerning BJP MLA Basanagouda Patil Yatnal. This notice was part of a defamation case brought by Minister Shivananda S. Patil during the tumultuous period of the last Lok Sabha election campaign in the Bagalkot constituency. The issue at hand revolves around allegations that Yatnal made defamatory statements against Patil, prompting the latter to file a private complaint.

The order was delivered by Justice M. Nagaprasanna’s bench after considering Yatnal’s petition, which sought the cancellation of the notice issued by the Special Court for People’s Representatives. Initially, the Special Court had taken cognizance of Shivananda Patil’s complaint and issued a notice to Yatnal under the BNSS. However, the High Court scrutinised the procedural validity of this action.

The bench highlighted a critical legal flaw in the manner in which the Special Court had handled the case. According to Section 223 of the BNSS, it is mandatory for the Magistrate to provide the accused with a copy of the complaint, the First Information Report (FIR), statements of the complainant and witnesses, as well as any supporting documents prior to proceeding with the issuance of a notice. Importantly, the accused should be given the opportunity to present their side before any action is taken.

In this instance, the High Court noted that the necessary steps had not been followed, leading to the conclusion that the notice issued to Yatnal was procedurally improper. The court underscored that there is no provision within the BNSS that allows for direct cognizance and issuance of a notice without following due process.

As a result of these findings, the High Court annulled the notice against Yatnal and remanded the case back to the Special Court for a fresh hearing. The court has mandated that this new hearing be conducted within the next four weeks, ensuring that all legal protocols as outlined in the BNSS are adhered to.

The ruling holds particular significance as it marks the first judgment made under the BNSS framework. Prior to this case, no other court in India had issued a written judgment based on this legislation. The High Court’s decision is expected to clarify the procedural requirements for subordinate courts dealing with private complaints under the BNSS, thereby establishing a legal precedent.

This ruling not only impacts Yatnal but also sets a crucial standard for future cases involving defamation under the BNSS. It reaffirms the importance of adhering to established legal protocols, ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected in the face of allegations. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, this case serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in upholding the principles of fairness and justice.

The Special Court must now prepare for the fresh hearing with a clear understanding of the High Court’s directives, ensuring that all parties are afforded the opportunity to present their cases in accordance with the law.