LawChakra

Rahul Gandhi’s 2018 Defamation Case Delayed Again Due To Lawyers’ Strike | Next Hearing on Jan 30

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

The defamation case against Congress MP Rahul Gandhi, initiated by BJP leader Amit Shah in 2018, has been delayed again due to a lawyers’ strike. Scheduled for January 30, 2025, the case has seen multiple postponements and involves allegations of Gandhi making offensive remarks during the Karnataka elections. Gandhi claims innocence, linking charges to a political conspiracy.

Rahul Gandhi’s 2018 Defamation Case Delayed Again Due To Lawyers' Strike | Next Hearing on Jan 30

New Delhi: The defamation case against Congress MP Rahul Gandhi, filed in 2018 over remarks on BJP leader Amit Shah, has been delayed yet again due to a lawyers’ strike. The case, which has already stretched over five years, will now be heard on January 30, 2025, to complete the cross-examination process.

Background of the Case

The case was initiated by Vijay Mishra, a local BJP politician, who alleged that Gandhi made an offensive comment about Amit Shah during the Karnataka elections, causing personal distress. Mishra filed the defamation suit, seeking redress for Gandhi’s remarks.

Delays in Proceedings

The case has faced multiple delays since its inception:

Rahul Gandhi’s Response

During his court appearances, Rahul Gandhi has maintained his innocence, alleging that the charges against him are part of a “political conspiracy.” He asserts that the remarks in question were not intended to defame but were part of political discourse during the elections.

Court’s Actions

The Special MP-MLA judge Shubham Verma directed the plaintiff, Vijay Mishra, to provide evidence. However, the frequent postponements have slowed down the proceedings, keeping the case unresolved.

Next Steps

The court has now scheduled the next hearing for January 30, 2025, marking yet another delay in the resolution of this protracted defamation suit. As the legal battle continues, the outcome of this politically charged case remains uncertain.

Exit mobile version