Bhiwandi defamation case: HC sets aside magistrate court order
A single judge bench of justice Prithviraj K Chavan declared the magistrate court’s order and the exhibition of documents as null and void, directing the lower court to proceed with the trial according to observations made in the high court’s order
MUMBAI: In a significant relief for Congress MP and leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, the Bombay high court on Friday overturned a magistrate court’s order, which allowed 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.
A single judge bench of justice Prithviraj K Chavan declared the magistrate court’s order and the exhibition of documents as null and void, directing the lower court to proceed with the trial according to observations made in the high court’s order.
The case stems from a complaint lodged by RSS worker Rajesh Kunte, who alleged that Gandhi, during a speech at Bhiwandi, 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.
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.
During the hearing, advocate Sudeep Pasbola, representing Gandhi, argued that the prosecution was depending on Gandhi’s writ petition instead of independently proving the defamation claim. Pasbola emphasised that the prosecution must establish its case without relying on Gandhi’s previous petition. He also argued that admitting the annexures would force Gandhi to address them unnecessarily and stressed the need for clarity on whether the documents were exhibited solely for identification purposes.
Justice Chavan highlighted that exhibiting a document does not mean its contents are proven and stressed that the burden of proof lies entirely with the prosecution.
Advocate Tapan Thatte, representing Kunte, maintained that proving the document’s authenticity was the complainant’s responsibility and that Gandhi had the opportunity to object when the document was first presented. Thatte clarified that the exhibit was for identification purposes and that he intended to prove its genuineness.
Previously, a bench led 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, ruling that Gandhi could not be compelled to admit the document simply because it was attached to his 2014 petition.