Bombay HC asks magistrate to defer hearing in complaint against Rahul Gandhi

The HC bench was informed by the advocate of the complainant that he needed time to respond to the petition filed by Rahul Gandhi, and hence, the hearing should be adjourned

In a relief for Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, the Bombay high court (HC) has asked the Girgaon magistrate court to defer the hearing of the defamation complaint by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) worker Mahesh Hukumchand Shrishrimal post-December 20 after the counsel for the complainant sought time to file a reply to the politician’s petition. Gandhi’s petition, which seeks quashing of the defamation complaint, will come up for hearing on December 16.

While challenging the complaint, Rahul Gandhi had stated that as the alleged defamatory statement he had made in Rajasthan in 2018 was against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, only the latter could lodge such a plaint. (ANI FILE)

The single-judge bench of justice SK Shinde was informed by Shrishrimal’s advocate Rohan Mahadik that he needed time to respond to the petition, and hence, the hearing should be adjourned.

However, advocate Sudeep Pasbola, who represented Gandhi, told the bench that the summons issued by the magistrate court had asked the Congress leader to appear before it in person on November 25. Hence, in light of the adjournment sought by the complainant’s lawyer, some interim protection should be granted to Gandhi.

Mahadik then tried to interject and wanted to point out the order which was under challenge. But justice Shinde retorted, “Either you argue or you take time to file reply. You cannot do both”.

When Mahadik sought for time to file the reply, the bench directed the magistrate court to defer the proceedings beyond December 20 and granted two weeks’ time to him to do so.

While challenging the complaint, Gandhi had stated that as the alleged defamatory statement he had made in Rajasthan in 2018 was against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, only the latter could lodge such a plaint. However, as the complaint was lodged by a person who did not have a locus, the magistrate had erred in issuing him the summons and hence, the complaint should be quashed.