SC stays criminal defamation case in Rahul Gandhi's 'Commander-in-Thief' remarks
What's the story
The Supreme Court has stayed the trial proceedings in a criminal defamation case against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. The case stems from Gandhi's remarks likening Prime Minister Narendra Modi to "Choro Ke Sardar" and "Commander-in-Thief." A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh issued notice returnable in four weeks on Gandhi's plea against the Bombay High Court's September 8 order refusing to quash the case.
Legal defense
Gandhi challenged summons issued by magistrate court
Before the High Court, Gandhi had challenged the summons issued by a Magistrate court in the case.
He contended that a complaint filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) worker Mahesh Shrishrimal was not maintainable as he did not name any party or identifiable class.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi represented him in court.
Court ruling
BJP, identifiable body: HC on why complaint maintainable
The High Court had rejected Gandhi's arguments, stating that the BJP is an identifiable body being a registered national political party.
The court said, "On a prima facie reading of the statement describing the PM, who is member of BJP as a commander-in-thief therefore at this stage, it cannot be said that the impugned comment is limited only to the senior leadership of the party."
Defamation claim
BJP worker claimed Gandhi's remarks tarnished Modi's reputation
Shrishrimal had argued that Gandhi's remarks tarnished the reputation of Modi and the BJP.
He claimed calling Modi "Choro Ke Sardar" implied all BJP members were "thieves," allowing party workers to file defamation cases.
However, challenging this in court, Senior Advocate Sudeep Pasbola argued that Gandhi didn't name any political party in his remarks and no identifiable class was targeted.
Legal opposition
What did the Maharashtra AG argue?
Opposing Gandhi's plea, Maharashtra Advocate General Dr Milind Sathe argued that the court must consider if defamation ingredients are made out and if remarks concerned a definite and identifiable group.
He said "some aggrieved person" could prosecute if such a group was established, opposing quashing proceedings at this stage.
The main question before the court was whether Gandhi's remarks amounted to criminal defamation and if a political party worker could maintain a complaint without explicit naming of parties or members.