Did Punjab and Haryana HC Reject Kangana's Request to Overturn Summoning Order?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has turned down Kangana Ranaut's request to overturn a local court's summoning order in a defamation case. This case arises from her controversial remarks about an elderly woman farmer. What are the implications of this ruling for Ranaut and the ongoing discourse surrounding the farmers' protests?
Key Takeaways
- The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed Kangana Ranaut's plea.
- The case centers around alleged defamation of an elderly farmer.
- Kangana's social media remarks have sparked significant controversy.
- The ruling highlights the responsibilities of public figures in their statements.
- Legal implications for defamation cases in India are profound.
Chandigarh, Aug 1 (NationPress) The Punjab and Haryana High Court has officially rejected the plea submitted by actress-turned-politician Kangana Ranaut seeking to quash the summoning order issued by a local court in Bathinda. This summoning is linked to a defamation case stemming from remarks made by Ranaut regarding an elderly woman farmer during the farm protests.
Justice Tribhuvan Singh Dahiya noted, “There are specific allegations against the petitioner, a public figure, suggesting that her retweet contained false and defamatory statements that have harmed the complainant's reputation and standing, both personally and publicly. Thus, the filing of this complaint to seek justice cannot be deemed malicious.”
The defamation suit was initiated by 73-year-old Mahinder Kaur from Bahadurgarh Jandian village in Bathinda district. Kaur claims that Kangana wrongly identified her in a post on the social media platform X, likening her to Bilkis Bano from the Shaheen Bagh protests and insinuating that women like her could be bribed to protest for as little as Rs 100.
In her retweet, Kangana remarked: “Ha ha ha, she is the same dadi who appeared in Time magazine for being the most powerful Indian... And she is available for 100 rupees. Pakistani journalists have hijacked international PR for India in a humiliating manner. We need our own individuals to represent us globally.”
This statement was made in response to a tweet by Gautam Yadav, which included a photograph of Kaur. Kaur contends that the defamatory nature of the comments has not only damaged her dignity but also tarnished her reputation among fellow protesters.
Kaur emphasized her lack of connection to the Shaheen Bagh protests and the individual featured in Time magazine, asserting that the claims made against her were entirely false.
Belonging to a farming lineage, Kaur actively engaged in the farmers' protest, and she stated that Ranaut's remarks led to public mockery and significant mental distress.
After a thorough examination of the case, the High Court found no valid grounds in Ranaut's petition and dismissed it. The controversial post, which has since been deleted, targeted Mahinder Kaur during her involvement in the farmers' protest at the borders of Delhi.
On February 22, 2022, a judicial magistrate in Bathinda had issued a summons requiring Kangana to appear before the court.
Dissatisfied with the lower court's decision, she approached the High Court, arguing that the trial court had incorrectly applied Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Point of View
It's crucial to remain unbiased while reporting on high-profile cases like that of Kangana Ranaut. This ruling underscores the legal challenges faced by public figures and reflects broader societal issues surrounding freedom of speech and accountability. The court's decision illustrates the judiciary's role in mediating conflicts arising from public discourse, making it a significant moment in the ongoing farmers' protests narrative.
NationPress
03/09/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the basis of the defamation case against Kangana Ranaut?
The defamation case was based on Kangana's remark on social media, where she allegedly misidentified Mahinder Kaur as a protester who could be hired for a fee, thus harming her reputation.
What did the Punjab and Haryana High Court decide?
The court dismissed Kangana Ranaut's plea to quash the summoning order from a lower court, stating that there were sufficient allegations warranting the case.
Who filed the defamation complaint?
The defamation complaint was filed by 73-year-old Mahinder Kaur from Bahadurgarh Jandian village in Bathinda district.
What was the nature of Kangana Ranaut's comments?
Kangana's comments suggested that Kaur, whom she mistakenly identified, could be paid to protest, which Kaur claims damaged her dignity and reputation.
What are the implications of this ruling?
This ruling may set a precedent for how defamation cases involving public figures and their statements are handled, especially in the context of political and social movements.
