The Bombay High Court, on Tuesday, called for the assistance of the Advocate General in relation to the petition filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. Gandhi seeks to quash the defamation case lodged against him by BJP leader Mahesh Shrishrimal, stemming from his 2018 “commander in thief” social media post and video.
Justice Sarang Kotwal, while addressing the matter, highlighted that Rahul Gandhi’s plea brought forth significant legal questions, including potential legal restrictions under Section 199 of the CrPC that might prevent Shrishrimal from filing the complaint. The Justice remarked,
“Considering these submissions, it is quite clear that the matter involves important questions of law, including special procedure provided U/s.199 of the CrPC. Therefore, I deem it necessary to request the learned Advocate General of Maharashtra to address the Court on all the legal issues involved in this case.”
In 2021, Rahul Gandhi approached the Bombay High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC, aiming to nullify a Girgaum Magistrate’s order that summoned him based on Shrishrimal’s complaint. Rahu Gandhi, in his plea, emphasized the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression, arguing that it safeguards criticism unless a statement is made with “actual malice,” implying the statement was knowingly false or made with reckless disregard for its truth.
Shrishrimal, in a recent affidavit, contended that Rahul Gandhi’s comments were explicitly aimed at the Prime Minister, thereby tarnishing his image and, by extension, likening all BJP members, including Shrishrimal himself, to thieves, thus damaging their societal reputation.
During the Tuesday hearing, Advocate Sudeep Pasbola, representing Rahul Gandhi, presented various arguments, referencing Section 199 of the CrPC and asserting a legal bar preventing the BJP leader from filing the complaint. Pasbola highlighted Section 199(2) of the Code, which outlines a special procedure for alleged defamation of certain authorities. Further, he pointed to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, specifically Explanation 2, arguing that a political party isn’t an “identifiable group of persons,”
thus Shrishrimal couldn’t have lodged the complaint in a representative capacity. Pasbola also emphasized potential infringements of Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
Countering this, Advocate Niteen Pradhan, representing the complainant, posited that Shrishrimal, being a member of the ‘BJP Maharashtra Pradesh Committee,’ had the right to file the complaint.
Given the intricate legal nuances, the court deemed it necessary to seek the expertise of Advocate General Birendra Saraf and has adjourned the case to October 17, 2023. The interim relief, which stays the proceedings, will remain effective until then.
This case, with its intertwining of politics and legal intricacies, continues to draw significant attention and remains a focal point in the ongoing discourse surrounding freedom of speech and defamation in India.