Bombay High Court refuses to quash defamation case against Rahul Gandhi

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused to quash a criminal defamation case against Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi for allegedly describing Prime Minister Narendra Modi as 'Choro Ke Sardar' and 'Commander-in-Thief' in 2018 in connection with the Rafale jet deal. BJP member Mahesh Shrishrimal filed a criminal defamation complaint against Rahul Gandhi, following which a Mumbai magistrate issued an order in August 2019 to initiate proceedings against him over the remarks made in connection with the Rafale fighter jet deal. The magistrate had ruled that the remarks had 'hurt the sentiments of PM Modi's supporters'. Advertisement Rahul Gandhi later challenged the Mumbai magistrate's August 2019 order initiating proceedings against him. Advertisement After Rahul Gandhi's lawyer requested the Bombay High Court to enable him to approach the Supreme Court, the court, on December 16, 2021, deferred proceedings before the magistrate's court for another six months. The court also granted Rahul Gandhi exemption from personal appearance before the magistrate. During the latest hearing before the Bombay High Court, Rahul Gandhi's lawyers argued that the complaint was frivolous, non-maintainable and intended to harass him, since only an aggrieved person could file such a complaint. Rahul Gandhi's lawyer also submitted that Gandhi had not named the BJP or any political party in his post on X and that no 'identifiable or definite class' had been targeted. In the absence of a clearly aggrieved person or group, the complainant, who is a BJP member, lacked the locus standi to prosecute the case, Rahul Gandhi's lawyer argued. Merely drawing an inference that Rahul Gandhi's remarks applied to BJP workers as well could not sustain a criminal defamation action, the lawyer argued. However, the complainant, BJP member Mahesh Shrishrimal's lawyer, countered that Rahul Gandhi's remarks were very much an attack on all BJP members. Appearing for the Maharashtra government, Advocate-General Milind Sathe argued that the complainant had legal standing and that Shrishrimal's complaint should not be quashed at the preliminary stage. Sathe submitted that the Bombay High Court should not evaluate the evidence at the present stage. After considering the arguments, Justice N R Borkar observed, 'On a prima facie reading of the defamatory statement, inter alia describes the Prime Minister, who is also the prominent face of the said political party, as having engaged in the acts of theft, while being the 'Commander of Thieves'. Therefore, at this threshold stage, it cannot be said that the alleged defamatory imputation is incapable of extending to those clearly identified with the party and its leadership, including its office bearers.' Justice N R Borkar held that whether the allegations affected only Prime Minister Modi or other BJP members as well would depend on the evidence, and that the merits of the case must be decided by the trial court, not the Bombay High Court. 'For the aforesaid reasons, and in the absence of any manifest illegality or perversity in the impugned order, it is not a fit case for interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). This court finds no infirmity in the impugned order,' Justice N R Borkar ruled.