Karnataka HC rejects BJP MLA Yatnal's plea in defamation case
- Karnataka HC dismissed BJP MLA Basanagouda Yatnal's plea to quash a criminal defamation case.
- The case was filed by Congress MLA Shivananda S Patil over comments made in an April 2025 interview.
- Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde ruled that witness testimony is not mandatory at the cognizance stage.
- Yatnal had challenged the magistrate's decision to take cognizance without examining reputation-lowering witnesses.
- The court noted the decision does not impact the merits of the case, which will be decided at trial.
On November 12, 2026, the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, dismissed a petition by expelled BJP MLA Basanagouda Ramangouda Patil Yatnal to quash a criminal defamation case against him. The court rejected the plea filed by the MLA regarding proceedings initiated by Congress MLA Shivananda S Patil. This ruling allows the legal proceedings against the BJP legislator to continue in the trial court.
Court clarifies interpretation of Section 356 of BNS
The court added that whether the public actually believed the allegations will be decided during the trial.
Defamation complaint stems from 2025 interview remarks
These remarks followed criticism from Congress MLA Shivananda S Patil and Congress MLA Vijayanand Kashappanavar regarding comments Yatnal made about Prophet Mohammed. In response, Yatnal challenged the two MLAs to resign and face by-elections.
During the interview, Yatnal allegedly attacked the character of Shivananda S Patil. He questioned Patil's parentage and claimed the family adopted the Patel surname for political reasons. Yatnal accused Patil of taking money during a padayatra and cheating the Panchamasali community.
Legal history of the defamation proceedings
Patil filed the criminal defamation complaint on July 18, 2025.
The magistrate issued summons to Yatnal based on a pen drive transcript, video clips, and statements from Patil and two witnesses.
Yatnal previously challenged this magistrate order in a revision petition before the Sessions Court, which the court dismissed on August 18, 2026.
Arguments presented by legal counsel
Advocate Dalwai Venkatesh represented Yatnal, while Senior Advocate Ravi B Naik represented Patil.
Yatnal argued that the trial court incorrectly took cognizance of the complaint without first examining a witness to confirm that Patil’s reputation was lowered, as required by Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Trial court to determine merits of the case
The High Court emphasized that at the cognizance stage, the trial court is not required to assess whether evidence is sufficient for a conviction.
All contentions remain open for the trial court to consider during the proceedings.
Frequently Asked Questions
Add NewsPulse Time as a preferred source on Google