न किञ्चिदाहाहितमप्रियं वचो न वेत्ति रामः परुषाणि भाषितुम्।
कथं नु रामे ह्यभिरामवादिनि ब्रवीषि दोषान्गुणनित्यसंमते॥
na kiñcid āhāhitaṁ apriyaṁ vaco
na vetti rāmaḥ paruṣāṇi bhāṣitum
kathaṁ nu rāme hy abhirāma-vādini
bravīṣi doṣān guṇa-nitya-sammate
na = not; kiñcit = anything; āha = does speak; ahitam = harmful; apriyam vacaḥ = or displeasing [to anyone]; na = not; vetti = He does know; rāmaḥ = Rāma; paruṣāṇi = harshly; bhāṣitum = how to speak; katham = how; nu = then; rāme hi = when Rāma; abhirāma-vādini = speaks pleasingly to all; bravīṣi = can you refer to; doṣān = His defects; guṇa-nitya-sammate = and is always acknowldeged to possess [only] auspicious qualities.
Rāma does not speak anything harmful or displeasing [to anyone]. He does not know how to speak harshly. Then how can you refer to His defects when Rāma speaks pleasingly to all and is always acknowledged to possess [only] auspicious qualities?
Not only is there no question of Rāma speaking harshly, Rāma speaks pleasingly to all. He is also acknowledged to possess [only] auspicious qualities. So how could Kaikeyī talk about His defects due to which He had to be banished?