The Bombay High Court on Tuesday asked the Advocate General of Maharashtra to appear in a plea filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi seeking quashing of defamation case over his “commander-in-thief” remark made in 2018 about Prime Minister Narendra Modi. A G Birendra Saraf is also asked to respond to the question as to whether any person be considered as representative of the party while filing a complaint for the party. The complainant, BJP supporter Mahesh Shrishrimal, alleged that the remark made in 2018 over the Rafale fighter jet deal had “hurt the sentiments of the PM’s supporters”. The court said there were crucial questions of law raised by Gandhi in his plea including procedure to be followed by trial court under Section 199 (prosecution for defamation) of CrPC where a minister is involved. The HC deferred till October 17 the proceedings before the magistrate court in the case. A single judge bench of Justice S V Kotwal extended the relief to Gandhi. The court had earlier too deferred the proceedings from time to time and granted relief to him from personal appearance before the magistrate. A Mumbai magistrate court issued summons to Rahul Gandhi in October 2019. The former Congress president, however, has not appeared before the magistrate till date. In 2021, Gandhi’s lawyer Kushal Mor filed a petition in the high court to quash the defamation case, arguing that the complainant was not the aggrieved party as the remark was about the Prime Minister. Advocate Sudeep Pasbola for Gandhi said the complainant had no standing to file the case in a representative capacity. He said that as per Section 499 (criminal defamation) of the Indian Penal Code, 'political party' is not an identifiable group of persons and therefore the complainant could not have filed the case in his representative capacity. He said that only the aggrieved person can file the defamation complaint and there was nothing to show that the statements were made against the present complainant or the BJP and none of them are defamed or aggrieved. He argued that the petitioner had the right to free speech under Article 19 of the Constitution. Advocate Niteen Pradhan for the complainant, on the other hand, submitted that he is an aggrieved person as member of Maharashtra Pradesh Committee of BJP and therefore he had filed the complaint in that capacity. The bench said that important questions of law were raised in the matter, and therefore requested AG Saraf to address the said issues during the next hearing on October 17.
