The Bombay High Court on Tuesday rejected a petition by Congress MP and Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi seeking to quash a 2019 summons issued by a magistrate in a criminal defamation complaint concerning his remarks against Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
While dismissing the plea, a single bench of Justice N R Borkar extended an existing order directing the magistrate to defer hearings for six weeks, allowing Gandhi an opportunity to challenge the ruling before the Supreme Court.
Justice Borkar observed that the court found no illegality, perversity, or infirmity in the magistrate’s decision that would warrant interference.
Origin of the Defamation Complaint
The legal dispute traces back to an August 28, 2019 process issued by a Girgaum magistrate court against Gandhi. The summons was initiated on a complaint filed by M H Shrishrimal, who identified himself as a member of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.
Shrishrimal claimed that Gandhi defamed Prime Minister Modi during a September 2018 public rally in Rajasthan while discussing the Rafale fighter jet deal, in which he referred to Modi as “commander-in-thief.” The complainant further stated that Gandhi posted a video carrying the same phrase on his personal account on X, formerly known as Twitter. According to Shrishrimal, these remarks amounted to direct accusations of theft against Modi, all BJP members, and Indian citizens affiliated with the prime minister.
Legal Arguments and Procedural History
During the High Court proceedings, Gandhi’s legal counsel, Sudeep Pasbola and Kushal Mor, contended that the complaint was frivolous and should be dismissed because Shrishrimal lacked legal standing. The defense submitted that the complainant could not maintain the action as he was not an aggrieved party. Shrishrimal opposed Gandhi’s petition.
The High Court had previously intervened in November 2021 by directing the magistrate court to defer proceedings in the defamation case, which had temporarily spared Gandhi from appearing before the magistrate. Tuesday’s ruling maintains that deferral for an additional six weeks to facilitate an appeal before the apex court.
