Rahul Gandhi’s counsel called the BJP member’s complaint frivolous, arguing that only an aggrieved person could file a defamation complaint. (Photos PTI)The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi challenging proceedings initiated against him in the defamation case over his “commander-in-thief” remark about Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2018.Gandhi challenged a Mumbai magistrate’s August 2019 order to initiate proceedings against him on a complaint that the remark, made over the Rafale fighter jet deal, had “hurt the sentiments of PM Modi’s supporters”. The high court found no “manifest illegality” in the magistrate’s order, which was issued following BJP member Mahesh Shrishrimal’s complaint.After Gandhi’s counsel requested the high court to enable him to approach the Supreme Court, the court deferred proceedings before the magistrate’s court by six more months. The high court first deferred the proceedings on December 16, 2021. It had also granted Gandhi exemption from personal appearance before the magistrate.Senior advocate Sudeep Pasbola and advocate Kushal Mor argued that the complaint against Gandhi was frivolous, non-maintainable, and intended for harassment, as only an aggrieved person could file such a complaint. Advocate Rohan Mahadik, appearing for the complainant, insisted the statement targeted all party members.Advocate-General Milind Sathe, appearing for the state government, argued that the complainant had legal standing and that his complaint should not be quashed at the preliminary stage, emphasising that the high court ought not to evaluate evidence at the current stage.“On a prima facie reading of the defamatory statement, inter alia describes the Prime Minister, who is also the prominent face of the said political party, as having engaged in the acts of theft, while being the Commander of Thieves. Therefore, at this threshold stage, it cannot be said that the alleged defamatory imputation is incapable of extending to those clearly identified with the party and its leadership, including its office bearers,” a single-judge bench of Justice N R Borkar held.Also Read | Rahul Gandhi defamation case: Gandhi murder, Godse links raised in courtThe bench also held that whether the allegations affected only the prime minister or also other BJP members depended on the evidence and must be decided by the trial court, not the high court.Story continues below this ad“For the aforesaid reasons, and in the absence of any manifest illegality or perversity in the impugned order, it is not a fit case for interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC. This court finds no infirmity in the impugned order,” the bench said.Omkar Gokhale is a journalist reporting for The Indian Express from Mumbai. His work demonstrates exceptionally strong Expertise and Authority in legal and judicial reporting, making him a highly Trustworthy source for developments concerning the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court in relation to Maharashtra and its key institutions. Expertise & Authority Affiliation: Reports for The Indian Express, a national newspaper known for its rigorous journalistic standards, lending significant Trustworthiness to his legal coverage. Core Authority & Specialization: Omkar Gokhale's work is almost exclusively dedicated to the complex field of legal affairs and jurisprudence, specializing in: Bombay High Court Coverage: He provides detailed, real-time reports on the orders, observations, and decisions of the Bombay High Court's principal and regional benches. Key subjects include: Fundamental Rights & Environment: Cases on air pollution, the right to life of residents affected by dumping sites, and judicial intervention on critical infrastructure (e.g., Ghodbunder Road potholes). Civil & Criminal Law: Reporting on significant bail orders (e.g., Elgaar Parishad case), compensation for rail-related deaths, and disputes involving high-profile individuals (e.g., Raj Kundra and Shilpa Shetty). Constitutional and Supreme Court Matters: Reports and analysis on key legal principles and Supreme Court warnings concerning Maharashtra, such as those related to local body elections, reservations, and the creamy layer verdict. Governance and Institution Oversight: Covers court rulings impacting public bodies like the BMC (regularisation of illegal structures) and the State Election Commission (postponement of polls), showcasing a focus on judicial accountability. Legal Interpretation: Reports on public speeches and observations by prominent judicial figures (e.g., former Chief Justice B. R. Gavai) on topics like free speech, gender equality, and institutional challenges. Omkar Gokhale's consistent, focused reporting on the judiciary establishes him as a definitive and authoritative voice for legal developments originating from Mumbai and impacting the entire state of Maharashtra. ... Read More