In the case Kamlesh Mandoliya v. Vikas Divyakirti, the Rajasthan High Court has stayed defamation proceedings against Dr. Vikas Divyakirti, founder of Drishti IAS, filed by Ajmer-based advocate Kamlesh Mandoliya over alleged remarks against the judiciary in a viral video. The trial court had summoned Dr. Divyakirti, claiming the statements were scandalous and not protected by free speech. However, the High Court observed that the remarks were made in a limited academic setting and upheld his right to expression under Article 19(1)(a), halting proceedings until further hearing.
Case Overview: Kamlesh Mandoliya v. Vikas Divyakirti
The case, titled Kamlesh Mandoliya v. Vikas Divyakirti, originated from remarks made by Dr Divyakirti during a lecture that were later featured in an online video. These comments, perceived by some as critical of India’s judicial system and appointment processes, prompted Ajmer-based advocate Kamlesh Mandoliya to file a criminal complaint. Mandoliya alleged that the language used was insulting and sarcastic, potentially damaging the judiciary’s authority.
The Ajmer Court, presided over by Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Manmohan Chandel, reviewed the video and took partial cognizance of the complaint. It rejected Dr Divyakirti’s defense, stating that the remarks did not qualify as protected free speech or academic criticism under the Indian Constitution. Instead, the court viewed them as deliberate attacks on judicial reputation, leading to a summons for Dr Divyakirti to appear on July 22, 2025. The court also directed the Ajmer Police to investigate further.
Dr Divyakirti challenged this in the Rajasthan High Court, seeking to quash the summons and proceedings. Justice Sameer Jain granted the stay, halting all actions in the lower court. The High Court is now set to hear detailed arguments to determine if the Ajmer summons should be upheld or dismissed.
Legal Defenses and Arguments Presented
Dr Divyakirti’s legal team, including advocates V R Bajwa, Sumeer Sodhi, and Puneet Singhvi, argued that the case lacked merit and infringed on fundamental rights. Advocate Sodhi highlighted the context, stating: “The case arises out of certain statements allegedly made by Dr Divyakirti during one of his lectures. Observing such statements made in a closed environment cannot amount to defamation and Divyakirti had a fundamental right to express his opinions and views, the high court has stayed all proceedings”.
Additionally, lawyer Puneet Singhvi emphasized: “We submitted that the comments made in the video did not intend to hurt anyone’s sentiments, and the initiation of criminal proceedings is legally flawed”. Dr Divyakirti denied authorizing the video, claiming it was edited and posted without his consent by third parties. He maintained that his observations were general, in the public interest, and targeted no specific individuals.
On the other side, the Ajmer Court dismissed these claims, noting the video’s wide circulation among IAS aspirants and its disrespectful tone toward the judiciary.
Understanding Key Legal Provisions: Defamation Under Section 356 BNS
This case revolves around Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which addresses criminal defamation in India. Under this section, defamation occurs when someone makes or publishes an imputation—through words, signs, or visible representations—with the intent to harm, or knowing it will harm, another person’s reputation. The law replaces the older Indian Penal Code Section 499 but retains core elements while incorporating modern updates for digital contexts.
Key aspects of Section 356 BNS include:
- Essential Elements: There must be an imputation concerning a person, intent or knowledge of harm to reputation, and publication of the statement.
- Punishments: Offenders face simple imprisonment up to two years, a fine, or both, or even community service in some cases. The offense is non-cognizable and bailable, meaning police cannot arrest without a warrant, and bail is typically granted.
- Exceptions: Truth is a defense if the statement serves the public good, and protections exist for good-faith opinions, fair criticism, or judicial proceedings.
Fundamental Rights in Play: Article 19(1)(a) and Freedom of Speech
At the heart of Dr Divyakirti’s defense is Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression. This fundamental right encompasses expressing opinions through various mediums, including lectures, videos, and writings, and even extends to silence or criticism of public institutions.
However, this freedom is not absolute. Article 19(2) allows reasonable restrictions for reasons like public order, decency, morality, contempt of court, or defamation. The Supreme Court has emphasized that free speech fosters democratic discourse and self-development but must not undermine societal institutions without justification.
In this context, Dr Divyakirti’s team argued his comments were protected expressions in a closed lecture setting, not defamatory attacks. The High Court’s stay suggests a potential reevaluation of whether the remarks truly harmed judicial reputation or fell under permissible criticism.
Implications and Next Steps
This stay provides temporary relief to Dr Divyakirti, allowing him to avoid immediate court appearances while the High Court deliberates. It highlights ongoing tensions between free speech in educational forums and safeguards for judicial integrity, especially in the age of viral online content.
