New Delhi, September 12, 2025: The Supreme Court on September 12, 2025, refused to entertain a petition by Kangana Ranaut, actress and BJP MP, seeking to quash a criminal defamation complaint filed against her for a tweet related to the 2021 farmers’ protests. The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, dismissed the petition as withdrawn after warning that further arguments could prejudice her defense in the trial.

The case stems from a tweet where Ranaut retweeted a post about Mahinder Kaur, an elderly woman protester, mistakenly linking her to Bilkis Dadi of the Shaheen Bagh protests. Ranaut’s comment, stating, “She is the same dadi who featured in Time magazine for being the most powerful Indian…. And she is available in 100 rupees,” was deemed defamatory by the complainant. The tweet implied that protesters like Kaur were available for hire, sparking outrage.

Justice Mehta remarked, “It was not a simple re-tweet. You have added your own comments. You have added spice,” rejecting Ranaut’s counsel’s claim that a clarification had been issued. The bench advised that such clarifications should be presented before the trial court and suggested Ranaut could seek exemption from personal appearance, noting her counsel’s claim that she faced safety concerns in Punjab.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court had previously rejected Ranaut’s plea to quash the summoning order, upholding the Magistrate’s finding that her tweet prima facie constituted an offense under Section 499 of the IPC (defamation). The High Court dismissed her argument that the tweet was made in good faith, citing the 9th and 10th Exceptions to Section 499, which protect imputations made for public good or in good faith. The court clarified that while a Magistrate may consider these exceptions, failure to do so does not render the summoning order illegal.

Additionally, the High Court noted that the complainant’s decision to target only Ranaut, and not the original tweet’s author, did not indicate mala fide intent. It also ruled that the absence of a report from Twitter Communications India Private Limited (TCIPL) on whether Ranaut made the retweet did not affect the Magistrate’s jurisdiction under Section 202 of the CrPC, as TCIPL was not the owner of Twitter’s platform.