Former Kerala DGP R Sreelekha faces criminal defamation proceedings over her alleged remarks related to Rahul Gandhi. (Img: X)
Thiruvananthapuram: A Kerala court has issued summons to former Director General of Police (DGP) R Sreelekha, now a Thiruvananthapuram councillor, in a criminal defamation case over her alleged remarks concerning Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi. The complaint, filed by Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) General Secretary K.P. Sreekumar, accuses the former senior police officer of making statements that allegedly sought to tarnish Gandhi’s public image and undermine the reputation of the Congress party.
The development has brought the intersection of political rhetoric, freedom of expression and criminal defamation under the spotlight, with the court scheduling the matter for further consideration on December 2.
Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Mavelikara, Soorya S. Sukumaran issued the summons on November 10 after taking note of the preliminary proceedings and examining two witnesses in connection with the private criminal complaint.
The proceedings, titled K.P. Sreekumar v. R. Sreelekha, originate from a complaint filed by Sreekumar on October 20, alleging that Sreelekha committed criminal defamation under Section 356(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
The court issued notice to the former DGP under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which governs the preliminary procedural requirements concerning complaints before a Magistrate. The matter has been posted for December 2 for the return of notice and further proceedings.
The controversy stems from a political address delivered by Sreelekha at a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) gathering in Punalur, Kollam district, on October 14. The meeting was organised by the BJP's Kollam East District Committee in support of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
During the public address, Sreelekha allegedly made disparaging comparisons between Rahul Gandhi's conduct during a democratic protest in Delhi and the behaviour of an individual under the influence of drugs and narcotic substances.
According to the complaint, the remarks falsely and maliciously portrayed the Congress leader as behaving in a manner suggestive of severe intoxication. Sreekumar contended that the allegations were baseless and calculated to inflict reputational damage on Gandhi.
The speech was subsequently broadcast by Mathrubhumi News and reportedly circulated extensively through Malayalam television news channels, digital news portals, newspapers and social media platforms, substantially expanding its public reach.
In his private complaint, Sreekumar alleged that the remarks were not merely an instance of political criticism but constituted a deliberate attempt to malign Rahul Gandhi's public standing. He further contended that the alleged defamatory statements had implications beyond the individual reputation of the Congress leader, as they were intended to collectively undermine the image of the Indian National Congress (INC), its office-bearers and its committed party workers.
Sreekumar also maintained that, as a senior Congress functionary and office-bearer, he had suffered reputational injury arising from the circulation of the controversial remarks. The complaint highlighted the extensive dissemination of the speech through broadcast and digital media, arguing that its widespread circulation had amplified the alleged defamatory impact across Kerala.
Before approaching the court, Sreekumar had reportedly issued a legal notice to Sreelekha on October 15. Through the notice, he sought an unconditional public apology, withdrawal and retraction of the alleged defamatory statements, besides compensation for the mental agony caused by the remarks.
However, the subsequent filing of the private complaint on October 20 brought the dispute into the criminal justice system. Advocate Saran Sivan appeared on behalf of the complainant before the Mavelikara court.
Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, deals with criminal defamation and substantially carries forward the framework governing reputational offences under the erstwhile Indian Penal Code. Under Section 356(1), a person may attract criminal defamation liability if they make or publish an imputation concerning another individual, intending to harm that person's reputation, or knowing or having reason to believe that such an imputation would cause reputational injury.
The statutory provision also contains exceptions covering specified circumstances, including certain statements made in the public interest, fair comment and expressions of opinion in legally recognised situations. The provision is punishable under Section 356(2), subject to the statutory conditions and applicable exceptions.
The present proceedings will examine the allegations raised in the private complaint in accordance with the prescribed criminal procedure. The issuance of summons or notice at this preliminary stage does not amount to a determination of guilt, nor does it establish that the alleged defamatory statements have been judicially proved. With the matter listed for December 2, further proceedings are expected to clarify the course of the criminal defamation complaint against the former Kerala police chief.
