The Bombay High Court on Tuesday rejected a petition filed by Congress leader and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi seeking to quash a criminal defamation case over his 2018 election campaign remarks targeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Single-judge Justice NR Borkar dismissed Gandhi's challenge against a Mumbai Metropolitan Magistrate's summons, holding that there was no perversity or manifest illegality in taking cognizance of the complaint.
While declining to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to terminate the prosecution at the threshold, the High Court granted Gandhi six weeks of protection from personal appearance before the lower court. The six-week stay provides the Congress leader an opportunity to challenge the High Court's ruling before the Supreme Court.
Legal Challenge to Locus Standi and Class Defamation
Gandhi had approached the Bombay High Court in 2021 seeking to quash the order issuing process in a criminal defamation complaint filed by Bharatiya Janata Party worker Mahesh Shrishrimal before the Girgaon Magistrate Court. Appearing for Gandhi, Senior Advocate Sudeep Pasbola, along with Advocate Kushal Mor, argued that the private complaint was unmaintainable because Gandhi had not specifically named the party or targeted an "identifiable or definite class" of individuals.
The defense contended that in the absence of a defined class or a directly named aggrieved party, individual party workers lacked locus standi under Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to initiate prosecution. Pasbola emphasized that allowing individual party members to file defamation actions over political campaign remarks aimed at public officials would open floodgates to bad-faith and politically motivated litigation. The defense further argued that Explanation 2 under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code does not classify political parties as a specific group capable of filing private defamation claims.
High Court Rules BJP an Identifiable Group
Justice Borkar rejected the defense argument, ruling that a registered political party constitutes an identifiable and determinative body under defamation law. Drawing on judicial precedent established by the Delhi High Court in a case involving Shashi Tharoor, the judge affirmed that a political party's formal registration as a national political entity establishes its distinct body status, allowing its cadre to be impacted by statements directed at party leadership.
Evaluating the complainant's standing as a member of the BJP Maharashtra Pradesh Committee for over two decades, Justice Borkar noted that statements against the party's leader could cast imputations across its membership. In his ruling, the judge stated: "Case of the complainant that he has been active member of BJP for two decades. On a prima facie reading of the statment describing the PM, who is member of BJP as a commander in theif therefore at this stage, it cannot be said that the impugned comment is limited only to the senior leadership of the party. Whether the imputation was in substance and what impact it will have on members of the party will have to be considered at the stage of trial. Therefore, this court finds no illegality in the order passed by the Ld Magistrate."
Origins of Campaign Speech and Lower Court Summons
The defamation dispute originates from political speeches delivered by Rahul Gandhi during an election rally in Rajasthan in September 2018. During the campaign event, Gandhi allegedly made derogatory remarks against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, describing him using phrases such as "Choro Ke Sardar" and "Commander-in-Thief." Complainant Mahesh Shrishrimal alleged that these statements led to widespread media trolling, damaging the public standing of the Prime Minister and by extension lowering the reputation of all BJP members.
Shrishrimal filed the private criminal defamation complaint in 2019, deposing in support of his allegations and submitting media coverage records. After scrutinizing the material, the Metropolitan Magistrate Court issued process against Gandhi in August 2019. Gandhi received the summons in July 2021 and subsequently filed Writ Petition 4391 of 2021 in the High Court. The High Court reserved its order in February 2026 after hearing Gandhi's counsel, complainant advocate Rohan Mahadik, and Maharashtra Advocate General Dr Milind Sathe.
Judicial Restraint Under CrPC Section 482 and Scope of Trial
Addressing the limits of High Court intervention, Maharashtra Advocate General Milind Sathe argued that the complainant's submission disclosed a prima facie offence under IPC Section 499, restricting the court's power to quash the proceeding before trial. Concurring with the State's submission, Justice Borkar emphasized the threshold required under inherent jurisdiction, writing: "In absence of any manifest illegality, perversity in the impugned order, it is not a fit case for interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order."
The High Court held that determining whether Gandhi's statements applied exclusively to the Prime Minister or extended to party workers requires evaluating evidence during a full trial. Referencing precedent in John Thomas, Justice Borkar held: "Whether the imputations were in substance confined to the Prime Minister alone, or whether and to what extent they cast their shadow upon the members and functionaries of the party is a matter requiring an appreciation of evidence and context in view of John Thomas, is a determination that must await trial rather than be conclusively answered in exercise of this Court's limited jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC."
Trial Progression and Legal Implications for Political Discourse
With the dismissal of the quashing petition, the criminal defamation proceedings return to the Girgaon Metropolitan Magistrate Court for trial in accordance with statutory procedures. The High Court clarified that its decision not to quash the complaint does not constitute a judicial finding of guilt against Gandhi. The burden remains on the complainant to establish all essential ingredients of criminal defamation during trial adjudication.
The decision underscores ongoing judicial scrutiny regarding the boundaries of political criticism during election campaigns and the legal standing of political cadres. While public debate is afforded wide latitude, the court's ruling confirms that remarks targeting top political leaders can face criminal defamation trials if brought by registered party members, subject to Gandhi's upcoming appeal before the Supreme Court within the six-week stay period.
