[Defamation Case] Bombay High Court Seeks AG's Assistance In Rahul Gandhi’s Plea Challenging Summons Issued To Him For His Remarks Against Modi

Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

The summons was issued following a complaint filed by Mahesh Hukumchand Shrishrimal, a BJP member. Subsequently, in August 2019, the magistrate court issued summons to Rahul Gandhi

The Bombay High Court has called upon the Advocate General, Birendra Saraf, to provide assistance in a petition lodged by Member of Parliament Rahul Gandhi challenging the summons issued to him by a magistrate court in connection with a defamation case initiated by a BJP leader.

“Considering these submissions, it is quite clear that the matter involves important questions of law, including special procedure provided U/s.199 of the Cr.p.c. 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,” the order reads.

The single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice Sarang V Kotwal, was hearing the plea challenging the summons issued to Rahul Gandhi.

The summons was issued following a complaint filed by Mahesh Hukumchand Shrishrimal, a BJP member. Subsequently, in August 2019, the magistrate court issued summons to Rahul Gandhi.

Gandhi had allegedly made certain remarks against Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a rally in Rajasthan in respect to the purchase of the Rafale Fighter Planes.

Advocate Sudeep Pasbola, representing Rahul Gandhi, argued that Section 199(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates a Sessions Court to take cognizance if a complaint is filed against a public servant.

He also contended that a political party does not qualify as an identifiable group of persons, and thus, the BJP member could not have filed the complaint in his representative capacity.

Additionally, it was asserted that the case pertains to an infringement of Article 19 of the Constitution of India.

Advocate Nitin Pradhan, representing the BJP member, argued that he was a member of the 'BJP Maharashtra Pradesh Committee,' and as such, he had the standing to file the complaint.

He further contended that the complainant was personally aggrieved, as evidenced by specific averments in the complaint, the verification statement, and the police inquiry statement conducted under Section 202 of the CrPC.

The high court will now hear the case on 17th October.

Case title: Rahul Gandhi vs State of Maharashtra & Anr