Is a registered political party an identifiable body for the purposes of criminal defamation? Justice Nitin Borkar has said it is, finding no illegality in the Magistrate’s summoning order and leaving the effect of the remark on party members to trial.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Mumbai: Declining to interfere with the Magistrate’s order issuing summons, the Bombay High Court has refused to quash the criminal defamation case against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi over his alleged “Chowkidar Chor” remark about Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The order was pronounced on 8 September 2026, after verdict was reserved in February. [Rahul Gandhi v. State of Maharashtra]
The writ petition was decided by a single-judge Bench of Justice Nitin Borkar. The case is at a pre-trial stage, the Court has not examined whether the imputation is made out, and the presumption of innocence applies to Rahul Gandhi.
The Court’s answer on identifiability
The BJP, the High Court held, is an identifiable body as a registered national party. On a prima facie reading, it observed, the comment could not be said to be confined to the party’s senior leadership. Whether the imputation was made in substance, and what it meant for members of the party, must be decided at trial.
For this, the Court relied on a Delhi High Court ruling in the Shashi Tharoor case, which treated a registered political party as an identifiable and determinative body.
The complaint, and Gandhi’s reply
Mahesh Shrishrimal, a BJP worker, filed the complaint before a Metropolitan Magistrate, who issued summons to Gandhi. The complainant alleges that Gandhi described the Prime Minister as “Choro Ke Sardar” and “Commander-in-Thief”. He contends that the remarks lowered the reputation of the ruling party and its members, and that calling the Prime Minister “Choro Ke Sardar” portrayed all BJP members as thieves.
On Gandhi’s behalf, it was argued that he did not name the BJP or any party in the post and that no identifiable or definite class was targeted, so the complainant lacked locus standi to maintain the complaint.
Case Details: Rahul Gandhi v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 4391 of 2021, order dated 8 September 2026; the next date is not available.
Appearances: For Rahul Gandhi, Senior Advocate Sudeep Pasbola. For the State of Maharashtra, Advocate General Dr Milind Sathe.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
Bombay High Court refuses to quash criminal defamation case against Rahul Gandhi over the Chowkidar Chor remark, saying the BJP is an identifiable body and the matter must go to trial.