High Court lets defamation case against Yatnal proceed
BENGALURU: In a notable legal development, the Karnataka High Court has delivered a major setback to Vijayapura City MLA Basanagouda Patil Yatnal by dismissing his petition seeking to quash ongoing criminal defamation proceedings initiated against him by former minister and MLA Shivanand S. Patil.
A single-judge bench presided over by Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde rejected the challenge, which had targeted earlier adverse rulings from both the Magistrate Court and the Sessions Court. The legal dispute stems from public statements made by Yatnal during an interview on a private YouTube channel on April 30, 2025, where he allegedly leveled derogatory and defamatory accusations against Shivanand Patil. Following the remarks, Patil filed a formal private criminal complaint before the 42nd Additional Magistrate Court in Bengaluru on July 18, 2025.
The Magistrate Court took cognizance of the offense under Section 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and issued summons to Yatnal on January 24, 2026. After the Sessions Court subsequently dismissed his revision plea on August 18, 2026, Yatnal elevated the matter to the High Court to have the judicial orders set aside.
No third party needed
During the High Court proceedings, Yatnal’s legal counsel argued that under Explanation 4 to Section 356 of the BNS, a defamation charge cannot be legally sustained unless an independent third party steps forward to testify that their estimation of the complainant’s reputation was personally harmed. The defense also contested the legality of taking cognizance based solely on statements from two supporting witnesses.
In contrast, counsel representing Shivanand Patil defended the lower courts’ rulings, asserting that the remarks were prima facie defamatory and that judicial cognizance was properly established.
A matter for trial
Rejecting the petitioner’s arguments, Justice Hegde clarified that at the initial stage of taking cognizance, it is not mandatory for a third-party witness to testify regarding actual reputational damage. The bench observed that if an accused person’s statements prima facie appear to injure the morality, character, or standing of the complainant, the trial court is fully justified in proceeding on the basis of statements provided by the complainant and available witnesses. Whether the remarks actually diminished Patil’s public standing remains a matter of evidentiary proof to be thoroughly tested during the full trial, allowing the defamation case to proceed.
