The
Supreme Court on Monday temporarily halted the criminal proceedings against
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in connection with a defamation case
filed by BJP worker Navin Jha. The case was triggered by Gandhi’s alleged
remarks against Union Home Minister Amit Shah and the Bharatiya Janata
Party (BJP).
A
bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard a special leave petition
(SLP) filed by Gandhi, challenging the Jharkhand High Court’s decision to
dismiss his plea to quash the defamation case. The case originates from remarks
Gandhi made during a public speech in Chaibasa in Jharkhand ahead of the 2019
Lok Sabha elections, where he allegedly referred to Amit Shah as a “murderer”.
Background of the
‘criminal case’
Navin Jha, a BJP worker, filed
the complaint in 2019, leading to the initiation of legal proceedings.
Initially, a magistrate court in Ranchi dismissed Jha’s complaint, prompting
him to file a revision petition before the Judicial Commissioner in Ranchi. On
September 15, 2018, the Judicial Commissioner overturned the dismissal,
ordering the magistrate to review the evidence and issue a fresh order.
Following this, the magistrate
found sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of defamation against
Gandhi under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to
criminal defamation. As a result, a summons was issued for Gandhi's appearance
in court.
Gandhi then challenged the order
in the Jharkhand High Court, but a single-judge bench led by Justice Ambuj Nath
rejected his petition, stating that his remarks were “prima facie defamatory”
under Section 499 of the IPC. Justice Nath’s order noted that Gandhi’s
statements about BJP leaders and their acceptance of a murder accused as a
party president could be considered defamatory.
Supreme Court’s
intervention
During Monday’s hearing, senior
advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Gandhi, argued that only the
aggrieved person could file a criminal defamation case, not a proxy party. The
Supreme Court granted a four-week period for Jha and the Jharkhand government
to respond to Singhvi’s argument, effectively putting the proceedings on hold
for now.