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

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi challenged a magistrate court’s order permitting an RSS worker to present a transcript of the alleged defamatory content that was previously part of Gandhi’s writ petition in the high court

The Bombay high court on Wednesday reserved its order on a petition filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi challenging a magistrate court’s order permitting a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) worker to present a transcript of the alleged defamatory content that was previously part of Gandhi’s writ petition in the high court.

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. (File Photo)

Justice Prithviraj K Chavan, presiding over a single-judge bench, heard arguments from both sides before reserving the order.

The case stems from a defamation 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 contested the Bhiwandi court’s order allowing Kunte to submit documents from his 2014 petition, which included a transcript of Gandhi’s speech from a CD of the purported live telecast, in the case.

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 Chavan 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.

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

Gandhi’s plea contends that the magistrate wrongly allowed the annexures to be exhibited as evidence, contrary to the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution.

After the Bombay High Court refused to quash the case in March 2015, Gandhi approached the Supreme Court. He later withdrew his plea, opting to face trial without apologising.