The Gauhati High Court has allowed Rahul Gandhi’s plea against a sessions court order permitting additional witnesses in his 2016 defamation case.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
GAUHATI: The Gauhati High Court has allowed a plea filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi challenging a sessions court’s decision to permit examination of three additional witnesses in a 2016 defamation case against him.
Justice Arun Dev Choudhury, delivering the judgment, held that the complainant had failed to demonstrate any substantive reason or legal necessity for calling new witnesses at such a late stage of the trial.
Background of the Case
The defamation case dates back to 2016, when Anjan Kumar Bora filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), at Guwahati. Bora alleged that during a December 2015 visit to Barpeta Satra, Rahul Gandhi made remarks suggesting that he was prevented from entering the premises by “RSS people.”
According to Bora, these statements were false, defamatory, and intended to communalise the issue to gain political mileage ahead of the Assam Assembly elections.
The magistrate took cognizance of the complaint under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deal with criminal defamation, and examined six witnesses before taking cognizance. Eventually, seven witnesses, including the complainant himself, were examined in total.
The Dispute
After the main witnesses had been examined, the complainant applied to introduce three more witnesses.
In 2023, the magistrate dismissed this request, observing that the complainant had not shown any compelling reason to reopen evidence or establish why the testimony of additional witnesses was necessary for adjudication.
However, on revision, the Additional Sessions Judge set aside the magistrate’s order and allowed the inclusion of three new witnesses.
Aggrieved, Rahul Gandhi moved the Gauhati High Court, challenging this order.
High Court’s Observations
Justice Choudhury found that the revisional court had ignored the settled legal principles governing the addition of witnesses at advanced stages of trial. The High Court observed:
“The Revisional court, however, without adverting to the absence of any substantive ground or recording any finding of the necessity of such witness, has mechanically interfered with the reasoned order of the Magistrate.”
The Court emphasized that the complainant had not explained how the proposed witnesses were connected to the facts in issue, and that the grounds cited were too broad and general.
Accordingly, the High Court concluded that the magistrate’s original decision to reject the plea was correct.
Court’s Directions:
Allowing Rahul Gandhi’s petition, the High Court set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and directed the Magistrate to expedite the trial.
It also underscored that since the petitioner is a sitting Member of Parliament, the trial court must ensure speedy disposal of the case in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directive in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, which called for prioritizing criminal trials involving lawmakers.
The order stated:
“It is made clear that as the petitioner is a sitting Member of Parliament, the learned Magistrate shall take measures to expeditiously dispose of the case, in terms of the direction issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India (supra).”
ALSO READ: Motive Not a Critical Component, Not Essential to Uphold Murder Charge: Delhi High Court
Appearance:
Rahul Gandhi: Senior Counsel AM Bora with Advocate VA Choudhury
The State: Public Prosecutor K Gogoi appeared for the State.
The complainant: Advocates BK Mahajan and N Mahajan
Case Title:
Rahul Gandhi v State of Assam and Another
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./283/2024
READ ORDER & JUDGMENT