The Bombay High Court on Tuesday rejected the plea filed by Leader of Opposition (LOP) Rahul Gandhi challenging the defamation plea over his remarks about Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Justice NR Borkar passed the order on a plea filed by Gandhi seeking quashing of the order issuing summons.
"In absence of any manifest illegality, perversity in the impugned order, it is not a fit case for interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order," the judge held.
He granted Gandhi six weeks of relief from appearing before the magistrate court, giving him time to challenge the ruling in the Supreme Court.
The defamation case was filed by BJP member Mahesh Shrishrimal before the Girgaon Magistrate Court.
The allegation by complainant was that in September 2018, Gandhi had conducted a rally in Rajasthan and made defamatory statements against Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Due to the defamatory statement, Modi was allegedly trolled on media by various news channels and social media platforms.
In August 2019, the magistrate summoned Gandhi to court.
The order summoning Gandhi was challenged by Gandhi before High Court after he received the summons in July 2021.
During an earlier hearing, the High Court requested the Maharashtra Advocate General to assist the Court on crucial questions of law raised in the petition. Accordingly, AG Milind Sathe addressed the court today.
He stated the material disclosed a prima facie offence, limiting the High Court’s power to quash it.
Sathe argued that under CrPC Section 199 and IPC Section 499 (Explanation 2), a BJP member is an "aggrieved person" with legal standing.
Senior advocate Sudeep Pasbola with advocate Kushal Mor, appearing for Gandhi, argued that the complaint was frivolous, vexatious and politically motivated.
He warned that allowing individual members of party to sue over remarks opens floodgates to bad-faith prosecutions.
The defence cited Section 199(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), arguing it legally bars this private complaint regarding a public servant.
He argued that as per explanation 2 under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, a political party is not identified as group of persons eligible to file a defamation plea.
Gandhi requested the High Court to quash the magistrate’s order.
Advocate Rohan Mahadik, appearing for Shrishrimal, opposed the petition pointing out that he had made out a prima facie case against Gandhi by deposing in support of his complaint and submitting evidence.
He added that the Magistrate, after scrutinizing the material submitted by the complainant, passed the order issuing process against Gandhi.
Shrishrimal argued that the complainant was an aggrieved person himself.
He pointed out that the complaint was filed in the capacity of member of ‘BJP Maharashtra Pradesh Committee’.
The Court concluded that at this stage, it found the alleged defamatory imputation capable of extending to those clearly identified with the party and its leadership, including its office bearers.
"Whether the imputations were in substance confined to the Prime Minister alone, or whether and to what extent they cast their shadow upon the members and functionaries of the party is a matter requiring an appreciation of evidence and context in view of John Thomas, is a determination that must await trial rather than be conclusively answered in exercise of this Court's limited jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC," the judge held.