Loading...
Bombay HC refuses to quash defamation case against Rahul Gandhi
The case comes from remarks Gandhi made about PM Modi in 2018

Bombay HC refuses to quash defamation case against Rahul Gandhi

Sep 08, 2026
04:54 pm

What's the story

The Bombay High Court has refused to quash a defamation case against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, Bar and Bench reported. The case, filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) member Mahesh Shrishrimal, stems from remarks Gandhi made about Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a rally in Rajasthan in September 2018. The court's decision was pronounced by Justice NR Borkar, who found no merit in interfering with the lower court's order summoning Gandhi.

Legal proceedings

Gandhi gets 6-week reprieve to challenge ruling

Despite dismissing Gandhi's petition, the court has granted him a six-week reprieve from appearing before the magistrate court. This gives him time to challenge the ruling in the Supreme Court.

The defamation case was filed after Gandhi called PM Modi a "commander-in-thief," alleging corruption in the Rafale fighter jet deal.

Shrishrimal claimed these remarks were defamatory and, further, were circulated on his personal X account.

Legal arguments

Court dismisses arguments by Gandhi's defense team

Gandhi's defense team, led by senior advocate Sudeep Pasbola and advocate Kushal Mor, argued that the complaint was frivolous, vexatious, and politically motivated.

They contended that Shrishrimal did not have locus standi to file the case as he wasn't an aggrieved party under Section 199(2) of CrPC.

However, the court dismissed these arguments, saying there was no reason to interfere with lower court proceedings.

ADVERTISEMENT

Case conclusion

Court's observations on imputations extending to BJP leaders

The court observed that the alleged defamatory imputation could extend to those identified with the party and its leadership.

It said whether these imputations were confined to PM Modi or extended to others is a matter for trial.

The court emphasized that this determination must await trial rather than being conclusively answered at this stage.

ADVERTISEMENT