The Bombay High Court has rejected a petition filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi that sought to challenge the initiation of defamation proceedings against him related to his 2018 comment describing Prime Minister Narendra Modi as a “commander-in-thief.”

This legal challenge arose from a ruling by a Mumbai magistrate in August 2019, which was prompted by a complaint asserting that Gandhi’s statement, made in connection with the Rafale aircraft deal, had offended supporters of PM Modi. The High Court determined there was no apparent illegality in the magistrate’s decision, which followed a grievance lodged by BJP member Mahesh Shrishrimal.

Following a request from Gandhi’s legal team to allow an appeal to the Supreme Court, the High Court postponed the proceedings in the magistrate’s court for an additional six months. This delay follows a previous postponement initiated on December 16, 2021, during which the High Court also excused Gandhi from appearing in person before the magistrate.

Senior advocate Sudeep Pasbola and advocate Kushal Mor contended that the complaint was baseless, unmaintainable, and aimed at harassment, arguing that only a directly affected individual could file such a complaint. Conversely, advocate Rohan Mahadik, representing the complainant, maintained that Gandhi’s statement was aimed at all members of the BJP.

Advocate-General Milind Sathe, representing the state, argued that the complainant had the legal right to pursue the matter and that the court should not dismiss the complaint at this early stage, emphasizing that this was not the appropriate time for the High Court to assess the evidence.

Justice N R Borkar, presiding over a single-judge bench, noted that a preliminary examination of the allegedly defamatory statement suggests it characterizes the Prime Minister, a central figure in the political party, as engaging in theft, thus implying that the implications of the statement could extend to other party members and leaders.

The bench concluded that the determination of whether the allegations pertained solely to the Prime Minister or also implicated other BJP members was a matter for the trial court to resolve, not the High Court.

In its ruling, the bench stated, “For the reasons outlined, and in the absence of any clear illegality or absurdity in the contested order, this case does not warrant intervention under Section 482 of the CrPC.” The court found no faults in the magistrate’s order.

Omkar Gokhale is a journalist for The Indian Express based in Mumbai, recognized for his strong expertise and authority in legal and judicial reporting. His coverage of developments related to the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court is considered highly trustworthy.

Gokhale’s affiliation with The Indian Express, a reputable national newspaper known for its commitment to journalistic integrity, enhances the reliability of his legal reporting.

His specialization lies in various facets of legal affairs, particularly:

• Bombay High Court Reporting: He delivers comprehensive, timely accounts of the orders and decisions from the principal and regional benches of the Bombay High Court, covering significant themes.
• Fundamental Rights & Environment: His reports address issues like air pollution, the right to life for residents near dumping sites, and judicial actions on critical infrastructure.
• Civil & Criminal Law: He covers notable bail rulings and compensation matters, alongside high-profile legal disputes.
• Constitutional and Supreme Court Issues: His work includes analyses of important legal principles and Supreme Court directives relevant to Maharashtra.
• Governance and Institutional Oversight: Gokhale reports on judicial decisions impacting public institutions, emphasizing accountability.
• Legal Interpretation: He analyzes public remarks and insights from prominent judicial figures on topics such as free speech and gender equality.

Omkar Gokhale’s consistent and focused journalism positions him as an authoritative voice on legal developments emerging from Mumbai, significantly influencing the broader context of Maharashtra’s legal landscape.