The Bombay High Court Tuesday requested Maharashtra Advocate General Birendra Saraf to assist the Court in a case filed by Congress leader and Member of Parliament Rahul Gandhi seeking quashing of a defamation plea against him.
The criminal proceedings against Gandhi were initiated by Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Girgaon on August 28, 2019 after a defamation complaint was filed by one Mahesh Hukumchand Shrishrimal, a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party.
Gandhi then moved the High Court to quash the same.
During the course of the hearing today, single-judge Justice SV Kotwal found that there were crucial questions of law raised in the petition which would require assistance of the Advocate General.
“Considering the submissions, it is quite clear that the matter involves important questions of law. Therefore, I deem it necessary to request the Advocate General of Maharashtra to address the court on all the legal issues involved in this case,” the judge held.
The allegations of the complainant were that in September 2018, Gandhi had conducted a rally in Rajasthan and during the said rally made defamatory statements against Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Due to the said defamatory statement, Modi was allegedly trolled on media by various news channels and social media platforms.
The magistrate proceeded to the pass an order in August 28, 2019 summoning Gandhi to appear before him.
This order was challenged by Gandhi in High Court after he received the summons in July 2021.
In his writ petition Gandhi stated that the complaint was frivolous and vexatious and motivated by the sole purpose of furthering the complainant's latent political agenda.
Gandhi’s lawyers advocates Sudeep Pasbola and Kushal Mor referred to Section 199(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The provision prescribes that a sessions court is required to take cognizance of an offence where the offence is alleged against a public servant in respect of a conduct in the discharge of his public functions.
He argued in view of this provision, there was a legal bar on the complainant Mahesh Shrishrimal against filing a complaint.
Pasbola also argued that as per explanation 2 under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, a political party is not identified as group of persons eligible to file a defamation plea.
He added that in view of this, Shrishrimal could not have filed a complaint in a representative capacity.
Therefore, Pasbola prayed for quashing of the order of the Magistrate.
Shrishrimal opposed the petition pointing out that he had made out a prima facie case against Gandhi by deposing in support of his complaint and submitting evidence.
He added that the Magistrate after scrutinizing the material submitted by the complainant passed the order issuing process against Gandhi.
Advocate Niteen Pradhan appearing for Shrishrimal argued that the complainant was an aggrieved person himself.
He pointed out that the complaint was filed in the capacity of member of ‘BJP Maharashtra Pradesh Committee’.
[Read order]