Bombay High Court reserves verdict on Rahul Gandhi's plea to quash defamation case over remarks about PM Modi

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict in the plea filed by Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi seeking quashing of a defamation plea against him over his remarks about Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Justice NR Borkar heard the matter before reserving his judgment in the matter.

The criminal proceedings were initiated against Gandhi by Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Girgaon on August 28, 2019 after a defamation complaint was filed by one Mahesh Hukumchand Shrishrimal, a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party.

The allegation by complainant was that in September 2018, Gandhi had conducted a rally in Rajasthan and during the said rally made defamatory statements against Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Due to the said defamatory statement, Modi was allegedly trolled on media by various news channels and social media platforms.

The magistrate proceeded to the pass an order in August 28, 2019 summoning Gandhi to appear before him.

This order was challenged by Gandhi in High Court after he received the summons in July 2021.

In 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 crystallised the three issues as: does the complaint disclose an offence, does it warrant interference from the High Court and whether a BJP member has the legal standing to file such a complaint based on Rahul Gandhi’s remarks about the Prime Minister and the BJP.

After applying the principles laid down in several judgments of the Supreme Court and other High Courts, Sathe submitted that the High Court’s power to quash defamation proceedings is extremely limited.

He reasoned that since the complaint and material on record disclose a prima facie offence, it cannot be tested like a mini-trial at this stage.

Sathe also submitted that, in line with Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and explanation 2 to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, in the present case the complainant, a BJP member, is a person aggrieved.

Thus, he has locus to maintain the defamation complaint based on allegedly defamatory remarks about the Prime Minister and the BJP as a determinate political body.

Senior advocate Sudeep Pasbola, appearing for Gandhi, opposed any suggestion that the remarks were non‑defamatory.

He submitted that if the law is construed to mean that any statement against a political party allows any self‑proclaimed “identifiable” member to initiate criminal defamation, it would open the floodgates to vexatious prosecutions. 

In his petition filed through advocate Kushal Mor, Gandhi stated that the complaint was frivolous and vexatious and motivated by the sole purpose of furthering the complainant's latent political agenda.

He referred to Section 199(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). 

The provision prescribes that a sessions court is required to take cognizance of an offence where the offence is alleged against a public servant in respect of a conduct in the discharge of his public functions.

He argued in view of this provision, there was a legal bar on the complainant Mahesh Shrishrimal against filing a complaint.

It was also 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.

He added that in view of this, Shrishrimal could not have filed a complaint in a representative capacity.

Therefore, Gandhi prayed for quashing of the order of the Magistrate.

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’.