Supreme Court stays trial court proceedings in defamation case against Rahul Gandhi over remarks on Amit Shah

The case was initiated on a complaint filed in 2019 by Jha who alleged that in the March 18, 2018, AICC Plenary Session, Gandhi referred to Shah, who then was BJP president, as a murder accused.

Senior Advocate A M Singhvi, appearing for Rahul Gandhi, Monday submitted that defamation complaints cannot be filed by proxy, pointing to judgments which said only the aggrieved can file a case.

Initially, a magisterial court dismissed Jha’s complaint against Gandhi. Jha then filed a revision petition before the Judicial Commissioner in Ranchi who overturned the magistrate court’s order and directed it to “re-appreciate the evidence available on the record” and pass an order afresh on the point of determining prima facie material to proceed in the matter.

The magistrate court then passed a fresh order, finding the prima facie case to be true under Section 500 (defamation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Gandhi challenged the “legality, correctness, and propriety” of the order dated September 15, 2018, by the Judicial Commissioner in the High Court. However, the Jharkhand High Court rejected his prayer to quash the case and said his imputation was prima facie defamatory.

“The speech made by Rahul Gandhi has imputed the Bharatiya Janata Party leadership to be liars who are drunk with power and that the Bharatiya Janata Party workers will accept a person accused of murder as the president of Bharatiya Janata Party but people will never accept the same in the Congress party. Prima facie, this statement points out that Rahul Gandhi has imputed that the Bharatiya Janata Party leadership was drunk with power and was composed of liars. It further means that the party workers of Bharatiya Janata Party will accept such person/persons as their leader. This imputation is prima facie defamatory in nature,” said the High Court.

The Jharkhand High Court added it did not find any illegality in the order of the Judicial Commissioner and the magistrate court’s fresh order.