MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday reserved its order on a petition filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, challenging a 2019 order which had issued formal proceedings against him over his alleged defamatory remarks against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, calling him a “commander-in-thief”.
The judges have concluded hearing arguments from both sides and will now deliberate and come to a judgement. Justice NR Borkar, however, clarified that the interim relief granted to Gandhi would continue till the judgment is passed.
The case stems from a private complaint filed on November 1, 2018, by Mahesh Hukumchand Shrishrimal, who claims to be a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). He alleged that during a public rally in Rajasthan on September 20, 2018, Gandhi made defamatory remarks against the Prime Minister, including the statement “Hindustan ka chowkidar chor hai”.
Shrishrimal further alleged that on September 24, 2018, Gandhi posted a video on his personal X (formerly Twitter) account and referred to PM Modi as “Commander in Thief”. According to the complainant, these statements amounted to direct allegations of theft against all members of BJP and Indian citizens connected to PM Modi.
In his petition filed in November 2021, Gandhi denied the allegations and said that he is only exposed to such frivolous litigation by his political adversaries due to his standing as an elected MP. He argued that the complainant appears to have made a “pathetic attempt” to justify the complaint. However, he said, the material produced by the complainant does not support his contentions.
“The complaint is wholly baseless and is nothing but a vehicle to drive the complainant’s own political agenda to tarnish his public image”, said the petition, filed through advocate Kushal Mor. The petition added that Shrishrimal has misinterpreted certain phrases and deluded himself into thinking that the alleged defamatory remarks were, in any manner whatsoever, referring to PM Modi.
Gandhi also argued that his alleged defamatory remarks were about the conduct of a public servant doing his official duties and therefore, “it cannot be deemed as defamatory”. “No individual can prevent the expression of public opinion by instituting cases of defamation to harass another person and humiliate him and put him in great expenditure”, he said.