Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

Congress Leader and MP Rahul Gandhi has approached the Bombay High Court against the order of the Thane Magistrate Court allowing the complainant, a RSS worker, to annex documents in the criminal defamation proceedings initiated against Gandhi for making remarks against Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

The RSS worker had lodged a defamation complaint against Gandhi, alleging that he had stated in a speech that the RSS was accountable for the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi.

Gandhi has approached the high court against the order of the Thane court allowing the RSS worker to exhibit documents that were a part of Gandhi's petition in 2014.

Today, Advocate Kushal Mor, representing Gandhi, argued that a coordinate bench of the high court had previously stated that merely because the RSS worker had obtained a certified copy of the petition filed in the high court, it did not obligate Gandhi to acknowledge it before the trial court. 

Mor further argued that despite this observation by the high court, the trial court had still permitted the RSS worker to annex the documents to the case.

Justice Kotval said that if the issue was covered by the division bench then Gandhi should approach the same bench.

"If you (Advocate Kushal Mor) are saying this issue has already been covered by this High Court, it would be better if the same judge hears this petition. There are observations by the judge. Let that judge sit in review instead of me sitting in appeal," the bench said.

Mor in response said that he would not have any objection if Justice Kotvak decides the case. 

However, Justice Sarang Kotval said that judicial propriety dictates that Gandhi should present the plea before the same coordinated bench that had made the observation.

"In respect of these annexures, a coordinate bench (Headed by Justice Revati Dere) had considered the same issue. There are certain observations about the admissibility of annexure. Considering the submissions, judicial proprietary demands matter be placed before the same judge as the same issue has been considered by the learned judge. The registry is directed to take necessary steps," Justice Kotwal said.

In 2021, the RSS worker challenged the trial court's decision rejecting his plea to annex specific documents from Gandhi's 2014 petition.

The high court had clarified that Gandhi could not be compelled to acknowledge or refute the inclusion of such annexures. 

Gandhi in his plea contended that the order and the exhibition of the entire writ petition is wholly contrary to settled principles of evidence and criminal jurisprudence.

The plea further added that producing the entire copy of the said writ petition with annexures is nothing but a veiled attempt by the RSS worker for getting the transcripts of the alleged speech admitted instead of proving the speech by its own documents.

Case title: Rahul Gandhi vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.