Bhiwandi defamation case: HC reserves order on Rahul Gandhi’s plea

The case stems from a defamation complaint lodged by RSS worker Rajesh Kunte, who alleged that Gandhi, during a speech at Bhiwandi on March 6, 2014, accused the RSS of being responsible for Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Wednesday reserved its order on a petition filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, challenging a magistrate court’s order allowing a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) worker to present a transcript of Gandhi’s speech included in his 2014 writ petition in the high court as evidence of his alleged defamation of the RSS.

HT Image

The case stems from a defamation complaint lodged by RSS worker Rajesh Kunte, who alleged that Gandhi, during a speech at Bhiwandi on March 6, 2014, accused the RSS of being responsible for Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination. Gandhi’s plea to quash the case was rejected by the Bombay high court in 2015, after which he approached the supreme court. He later withdrew his plea, opting to face trial without apologising.

In June 2023, the Bhiwandi magistrate’s court, which was hearing the defamation case, allowed Kunte to submit documents from Gandhi’s 2014 petition in the high court, which included a transcript of his speech from a CD of the purported live telecast. Gandhi approached the high court against this decision, contending that the magistrate had wrongly allowed the annexure to be exhibited as evidence, contrary to the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

Advocate Sudeep Pasbola, representing Gandhi, argued that the prosecution was relying on Gandhi’s writ petition instead of proving the defamation case independently. “Their whole exercise is not to prove the case but to prove that a petition has been filed referencing the case,” Pasbola said. “The prosecution would have to stand on its own legs.”

Pasbola also contended that accepting the annexures would force Gandhi to address them unnecessarily, and emphasised the need for clarity on whether the documents were exhibited solely for identification purposes. “If you mark it as an exhibit without saying whether it is a tentative marking, I am in a quandary whether I should deal with it,” he said.

Justice Prithviraj K Chavan, presiding over a single-judge bench, noted that the magistrate should be informed that merely exhibiting a document does not equate to proving it. “How can you dictate what they should say or not say? The accused has the right to sit mum in the dock. The entire burden is on you. This is what our jurisprudence says. Stand on your legs and fall on your legs,” he remarked.

Advocate Tapan Thatte, representing Kunte, maintained that the onus was on the complainant to prove the document’s genuineness and that Gandhi had the opportunity to object when the document was initially produced. Thatte clarified that the exhibit was solely for identification and that he intended to prove it.

Justice Chavan heard arguments from both sides before reserving the order.

In September 2021, a bench presided over by Justice Revati Mohite Dere had dismissed an appeal by Kunte to admit the transcript as evidence under section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court had ruled that Gandhi could not be compelled to admit the document merely because it was annexed to his 2014 petition.