Bombay HC Extends Temporary Relief for Rahul Gandhi in Defamation Case

The Bombay High Court has prolonged the temporary relief granted to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, and sparing him from appearing before a magistrate court in Mumbai until February 26 in connection with a defamation case. Rahul Gandhi’s lawyer Kushal Mor, had petitioned the Bombay High Court to dismiss the proceedings related to his “commander-in-thief” comment […]

by Ashish Sinha - January 24, 2024, 3:32 am

The Bombay High Court has prolonged the temporary relief granted to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, and sparing him from appearing before a magistrate court in Mumbai until February 26 in connection with a defamation case.

Rahul Gandhi’s lawyer Kushal Mor, had petitioned the Bombay High Court to dismiss the proceedings related to his “commander-in-thief” comment against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2018 during a public rally in Rajasthan. This remark was also posted on Gandhi’s Twitter account on September 24, 2018.

A BJP worker named Mahesh Shrishrimal, residing in Girgaon, alleged that Gandhi’s statement labeled the Prime Minister as a “commander-in-thief,” insinuating theft against all BJP members and Indian citizens. Shrishrimal filed a defamation suit in the Magistrate court, which, after hearing his plea, issued a process and summoned Gandhi.
Niteen Pradhan, the complainant’s advocate, was absent in court, and his junior sought an accommodation before Justice NJ Jamadar’s bench.

Upon learning of this, Advocate Sudeep Pasbola, representing Gandhi, requested an extension of the previously granted relief, a request the bench approved.
In Gandhi’s plea to the Bombay High Court, he argued that, as an elected representative, he often faces baseless litigation driven by political motives. Gandhi contended that the magistrate’s court plea was a harassment tactic aimed at tarnishing his public image.

In response, Shrishrimal asserted that he had established a prima facie case against Gandhi, and the magistrate issued the summons only after being satisfied. He emphasized that Gandhi could have challenged the magistrate court’s order through a revision application before the Sessions Court instead of directly seeking quashing in the high court.
In a prior hearing, the High Court directed the Girgaum Magistrate court to postpone the case’s hearing until the next high court session, and subsequent hearings have consistently extended this relief.